All B/R update speculation.

[Megadeus]

Llawan, Cephalid Empress with a casting cost power creep.

Believe me, I'm at the point that I'm so fed up with the fucking card that I play multiple Llawan in any fair blue deck I play at this point.

The problem with most of the removal for the card is that it's narrow and generally bad. Ever stared down a turn 2 True Name off of Deathrite with a Diabolic Edict in your hand?

[Bignasty197]

Never had a big issue with TNN, but I'd be cool with a linear card like:

Fish Fry 1R
Sorcery

Fish Fry cannot be countered.
Fish Fry deals 2 damage to each blue creature.
This damage cannot be prevented.

Fred wanted his friends to think he liked the taste,
but he truly just wanted to watch the scaly bastards suffer.
Suffer as he had.

Seems fair and balanced to me. BRB, stuffing face with fried fish.

[Erdvermampfa]

Yes, it is obviously not done with just exchanging a few slots with cards that could handle TNN theoretically. Instead you might have to make bigger concessions and play strategies that these blue midrange goodstuff decks are lackluster against. You cannot just continue to play one's petdeck for years without adaption.

[MorphBerlin]

I think after tonight I'm done with this format as long as true name exists. The card is fucking miserable. I realize it's never going to be banned so fuck it. I can't do it anymore. I just dropped at 1-1 at local because the card kills any interesting interaction that exists in a fair game of Magic for little cost.

Jesus what deck are you playing thats so cold to TNN?

[Whitefaces]

Jesus what deck are you playing thats so cold to TNN?

Maverick.

[Megadeus]

I mean we're at a point of the game where a blue 3 drop out classes every green playable creature in the format. Sick format. Oh also blues aggro one drop is better than any green aggro 1 drop, or red. Or white. Or black. Blue gets the best creatures now is what I'm saying. Oh also the best eternal witness ever printed too. So yeah. All held together by the most retarded draw spell not named ancestral that gets to be almost 2/3 of this shit format but it's okay because #SkillIntensive while fucking squirrel combo is too powerful for the format for reasons completely fucking unknown

[kombatkiwi]

I mean we're at a point of the game where a blue 3 drop out classes every green playable creature in the format. Sick format. Oh also blues aggro one drop is better than any green aggro 1 drop, or red. Or white. Or black. Blue gets the best creatures now is what I'm saying. Oh also the best eternal witness ever printed too. So yeah. All held together by the most retarded draw spell not named ancestral that gets to be almost 2/3 of this shit format but it's okay because #SkillIntensive while fucking squirrel combo is too powerful for the format for reasons completely fucking unknown

If you're going to make "waaah waaaah color pie" arguments then I have to remind you that DRS is green

[Megadeus]

I mean I get that the color pie is essentially irrelevant. The bigger issue is that the same color has the best creatures, best answers, best draw spells, best walkers best combo pieces. At some point it's like can we get a fucking bone to maybe discourage playing blue? Leovold being one sided chains in blue was the last fucking nail

[maharis]

If you're going to make "waaah waaaah color pie" arguments then I have to remind you that DRS is green

There is nothing wrong with DRS from a color pie standpoint except for MAYBE being able to make mana of any color off a creature by only tapping B instead of G. However, Black does get GY interaction and mana acceleration so that can at least be justified.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that DRS isn’t overpowered. But it also has nothing to do with what Megadeus is saying, which is that a sequence of printings have injected one very particular kind of deck with rocket fuel while other kinds of decks get nothing (or what they do get is so cold to the blue stew that it’s irrelevant.



Sure, all fair points as well, but if the thrust of the argument is, "I just can't ever beat this guy once he's in play!" that's not necessarily true, it's just that people don't want to adjust to it - it'd be wonderful if no one played counterspells and I could just cut all the discard spells from my ANT deck for things that helped me combo, but sometimes you have to make deckbuilding concessions that make your main weaker so that you can have outs to things that beat your deck. If the choice is "I can kill my own x/1 and their otherwise unkillable guy and still have a chance" versus "I'm just dead to mini progenitus" why not try option 1?

Plus, sometimes it isn't actually worth it, and you have to acknowledge sometimes they're going to get you - generally people don't play a bounce spell in ANT and just end up losing to Gaddock Teeg game 1. You could add one, as there are flex slots, but in general people have decided it's not worth it. Maybe TNN is the Gaddock Teeg of "play some green duders and get in there" decks.

The difference between TNN to a fair deck and Chalice/Thalia/Teeg to a combo deck is that the latter only need to be off the table for one turn for the combo player to win. The dynamic with TNN in a fair matchup is such that even if you deal with the first one, you are too far behind to come back... and nothing stops them from just having another before you can turn around because the deck-construction cost is so low.

[PirateKing]

Hey now guys, let's not look a gift Great Sable Stag in the mouth. Format's saved!

[kombatkiwi]

That doesn’t mean, of course, that DRS isn’t overpowered. But it also has nothing to do with what Megadeus is saying, which is that a sequence of printings have injected one very particular kind of deck with rocket fuel while other kinds of decks get nothing (or what they do get is so cold to the blue stew that it’s irrelevant.

The difference between TNN to a fair deck and Chalice/Thalia/Teeg to a combo deck is that the latter only need to be off the table for one turn for the combo player to win. The dynamic with TNN in a fair matchup is such that even if you deal with the first one, you are too far behind to come back... and nothing stops them from just having another before you can turn around because the deck-construction cost is so low.

Well if he meant that, he should have said that, rather than 'boo hoo green creatures aren't good enough'

I don't understand the "ARGH EVEN IF I KILL THIS I CAN'T EVEN WIN HE'S TOO FAR AHEAD" the creature literally does nothing. In Patrick Sullivan's Chupacabra rant it's the legacy version of Baneslayer. You can tap out for 3 mana and lose it to Innocent Blood or Diabolic Edict or Golgari Charm, be down tempo and end up with nothing (not to mention Daze or Pyroblast etc), and even if you can't kill it _IMMEDIATELY_ it's not like a Scarab God or whatever that puts the opponent insanely far ahead every time they untap with it. It just does 3 damage every turn.

If you say:
1) Blue creatures are currently the best and this does not align with wizards vision of the colour pie
2) TNN is a good creature, and certain other cards that used to be good are really bad against it

I don't disagree with either of these statements but I don't think either one demands rebalancing of the competitive environment

[MorphBerlin]

Maverick.

If you can't find ways to deal with a TNN in your Green, Black and White deck maybe you should try a more casual format. It's really not that hard

The whining is especially redicilous, since you get to play your own build your own TNN out of any creature for W for years, which renders creature combat basically meaningless and has a window of one turn to be dealt with before rendering spot removal useless as well as TNN....

[ParkerLewis]

The whining is especially redicilous, since you get to play your own build your own TNN out of any creature for W for years, which renders creature combat basically meaningless and has a window of one turn to be dealt with before rendering spot removal useless as well as TNN....

"A window of one turn to be dealt with before X" makes a huge difference. It is actually so huge that not seeing or dimissing it says a lot.

Also, you can still interact with mom after one turn. You just usually need to accept a 1-for-2. And sometimes you don't even need to (ex : Jitte). Also, mom itself isn't a clock (and if it even tried to, then you could get rid of it anyway, so...).

So, no. This path will lead you to nowhere except discredit.

[MorphBerlin]

"A window of one turn to be dealt with before X" makes a huge difference. It is actually so huge that not seeing or dimissing it says a lot.

Also, you can still interact with mom after one turn. You just usually need to accept a 1-for-2. And sometimes you don't even need to (ex : Jitte). Also, mom itself isn't a clock (and if it even tried to, then you could get rid of it anyway, so...).

So, no. This path will lead you to nowhere except discredit.

Casually leaving out the main part of my argument.

I did not say mom is the same as tnn, just that is pretty redicilous in fair creature MUs as well and I hope you don't try to deny that. I just wanted to point out the hiporacy as you are fine as long as you get the tools but cry as soon as you face something challenging which you can't incoporate

[Megadeus]

Except Mom by itself is pretty bad at everything besides blocking (which then exposes it to removal) so it needs another creature to be relevant, plus as said can be removed via many other things whereas against true name you can have a hand of 7 spot removal with your creature out and it will infinitely block your creature while still never being exposed. It's also very low opportunity cost as it by itself is an infinite wall or clock, while mom again constrains deck building by forcing you to play with a decent amount of creatures to actually do anything, also it doesn't exist in the color that gets the other best aggressive 1 drop, best cantrips, and best answers

[Crimhead]

The difference between TNN to a fair deck and Chalice/Thalia/Teeg to a combo deck is that the latter only need to be off the table for one turn for the combo player to win.
Sometimes the Chalice also prevents a Storm player from efficiently sculpting their hand; or an Elf layer from dropping dorks and sculpting their board.



The dynamic with TNN in a fair matchup is such that even if you deal with the first one, you are too far behind to come back.
That would depend on the fair deck.

-Prowess is rarely bothered by a TNN, and should easily outrace.
-Eldrazi should normally be well ahead of most TNN decks. I suspect this is also true of the new Steel Stompy tempo deck.
-D&T is perhaps on a down swing, but has been a solid competitor over the last few years despite the presence of TNN.
-Burn is probably better positioned than it has been in years (would probably do better with more quality pilots), and fears no TNN.

Most fair decks are running counter-spells anyway. What fair decks are really having that much trouble?


Maverick.
Maverick is a tier-2 deck at best. A person who cannot embrace a Legacy without Maverick is never going to be happy again.

Legacy currently features strong prison, stompy, combo, and (hard) control decks all populating the top tiers. There is only so much room for fair magic midrange and tempo decks in a format this diverse in play-styles.

[MorphBerlin]

Maverick is a tier-2 deck at best. A person who cannot embrace a Legacy without Maverick is never going to be happy again.

Legacy currently features strong prison, stompy, combo, and (hard) control decks all populating the top tiers. There is only so much room for fair magic midrange and tempo decks in a format this diverse in play-styles.

The B&R-List would have to get alot longer for a deck like maverick to be good again, it's just a worse creature deck than d&t and a worse midrange deck then the e.g. BUG, Grixis and 4C variants. TNN is dull I agree, but there are alot of cards that are actually worse than it to that regard and it's defenitly not a problem for the format power wise. Just alot of whining by people not acepting that the format has evolved past their petdeck.

[ParkerLewis]

I did not say mom is the same as tnn, just that is pretty redicilous in fair creature MUs as well and I hope you don't try to deny that. I just wanted to point out the hiporacy as you are fine as long as you get the tools but cry as soon as you face something challenging which you can't incoporate

Yes, I'll be denying that. The fact that you dare such a comparison shows that you don't even know what you're talking about. Regarding your lazy comment about what I could or could not "incoporate", while you know nothing about me, my position regarding TNN, or the kind of decks I play or have played, I'll just respond with a condescending smile :smile:.

Also, I've never been a hippocrat. This is redicilous.

[Rascalyote]

All this maverick hate :(. The deck isn't that bad, very few people play it though.

I'm not really bothered by True Name. Sure TNN brick walling Knight is annoying but if it has to stay back and have a staring contest with your knight then you at least get to crop rotate every turn with her while their 3 drop does literal nothing. We also have main deck options to get around it like Dark Depths, Mother, and SoFI. Out of the sideboard we're lucky that we actually have good answers, you don't know how fortunate you are to have access to Zealous Persecution until you see Death and Taxes players sleeve up hot garbage like Holy Light. You also get access to Thoughtseize which lets you handle TNN while making your combo matchup decent.

Sure, it's annoying that blue gets awesome creatures- Leovold being blue instead of abzan and Delver of Secrets being in the same set as Reckless Waif, a card that is harder to flip, lacks a keyword, and is even an uncommon, was really ?????. But nothing that I think cards should get banned over.

[Ronald Deuce]

Just to make sure I'm up to speed, it seems the hated card du jour is triple-costed Delver with Hexproof. Just checking.

[Brainstorm Ape]

Just alot of whining by people not acepting that the format has evolved past their petdeck.

Is it all that unwarranted? Bear with me for a second.

Part of Legacy's appeal comes from the eternal and non-rotating nature. You can use cards from any time in the history of Magic and they don't rotate out in a planned obsolescence scheme (a la Standard or 1.X). This means you can buy into a deck and have confidence it will still be playable, in some sense, years down the road.

Currently, Legacy doesn't do a good job of fulfilling this. Decks are falling by the wayside left and right as power-creeped bullshit forces its way into the format and bad bans kill off other archetypes (RIP Survival, RIP decks that needed SDT to function). Too many decks are relegated to the tier 30%winrateagainsttheFNMfield dustbin while all the power ossifies around a few pillars of the format (some of which are very SKILL INTENSIVE).

"Well that's competitive formats for you; adapt or die" is the predicted response. Problem here is that this isn't very fun nor interesting in Legacy. Distinct, interesting archetypes aren't rising up to replace the pet decks consigned to oblivion, the same archetypes just gobble up more of the metagame share.

Compare to Modern...yep I'm going there. I've shat on that format as much as probably anybody else here; what kind of shit format has to ban Wild Nactl, am I right guys? But looking at recent tournaments, especially the most recent Promotional Tour, it's a real dynamic format. Sure, your shit gets banned for no reason, but there are interesting new decks popping up all over. The finals were Lantern Control vs a non-Blue Young Pyromancer deck. A pile built around Burning Inquiry and Goblin fucking Lore was the breakout deck of the tournament. And the big favorite decks underperformed.

Shit, this reminds of the halcyon days of Legacy where every top 8, from week to week, would be completely unpredictable, where any cries of "ban X" were silenced by hardly any appearances in the top tables of the next big tournament (even including Blue cards).

But instead of interesting stuff like this, we can get excited about the nth tiny iteration on the Blue stew, what cards du jour Tomb/City/Chalice decks kill with (Exalted Angel is making a comeback, I'm sure!), and maybe get enraged like Borborygmos when some rapscallion trolls us with a fake pirate deck. Oh yeah, and be way more SKILL INTENSIVE.

[Megadeus]

Can't remember the last time we had a deck as outside the lines as the deck that got to the finals in modern do something like that at a large event. It has to have been years right?

[Zombie]

Can't remember the last time we had a deck as outside the lines as the deck that got to the finals in modern do something like that at a large event. It has to have been years right?

Probably BR Sire of Insanity or something.

[Crimhead]

Distinct, interesting archetypes aren't rising up to replace the pet decks consigned to oblivion, the same archetypes just gobble up more of the metagame share.
I'm not buying this at all.

In the time since Maverick fell out of favour (2012-2013) we have seen the rise of:

-Eldrazi
-RGCL
-RB Reanimator
-Infect
-GB Elves
-Steel Stompy
-New Miracles.

We get plenty of new decks that are interesting and 100% distinct. The only thing we aren't really getting are linear aggro decks and cantrip-free midranges decks. That's hardly the end of the world.


All this maverick hate :(
I've got no bad feelings towards Maverick as a deck. I suspect it's firmly tier-2, but still very capable.

What I don't understand is how people seem to ignore the wealth of distinct archetypes in this format all for the lack of a tier-1 blueless "fair magic" midrange option.

Steel Stompy is nothing like Mud (or Eldrazi), but some people refuse to recognise it as innovation - unable to see past the Sol Lands and Chalice. Likewise all decks with canntrips; or all decks with DRS, are essentially the same. Maverick, and only Maverick, is truly distinctive. And there is no shortage of hyperbolic nonsense to support this.



The deck isn't that bad, very few people play it though.
I always felt this way about Aggro Loam in the SDT Miracles era.

Interestingly, Aggro Loam seems to have dropped of the face of the Earth! I wonder, is this because:

The deck leaned heavily on a favourable Miracles match and can no longer compete? Or,
Loam was primarily played (begrudgingly) by Maverick refugees who are back to Maverick now that they no longer feel beaten into playing CotV?

[ESG]

Can't remember the last time we had a deck as outside the lines as the deck that got to the finals in modern do something like that at a large event. It has to have been years right?

Last weekend.
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?32203-WA-Mox-Boarding-House-1K-Doubleheader-Weekend

First tournament: 72 players. Won by Steel Stompy, which The Source said wasn't a real deck. Second tournament: 86 players. Won by UB Death's Shadow, overcoming Mill in the finals. MILL! Obviously these events don't have the status of the Pro Tour, but they're still very competitive and well-attended.

[Stevestamopz]

"Move on from your pet deck"

No, how about you go play standard and be a grinder barnacle turd where you don't get to have a pet-deck and when you play Legacy you just play Ape and Show because it's quick and easy.

What the fuck, do Vintage players say shit like this too or have they worked out that they are FILTHY FUCKING CASUALS? The reason Legacy isn't a 2 deck formats is because almost everyone plays decks that are strictly worse 75s than the top decks - which most people could sleeve up if they wanted to, they just elected not to.

[Dice_Box]

To be honest, Vintage is fun but has limited play. As the format grows in Restricted cards the format itself shrinks. There will come a day where the best deck in Vintage is a Highlander deck and when that day comes there will be no answer. That and right now you are stuck playing a known element to do well, even if you can change up how it works some. (Golden Gun Oath for example)

The most healthy format right now is Modern, Legacy is drifting towards the Vintage situation where known elements are really all that is viable. This is not really a point of debate or complaint, it is the outcome of the formats identity. Ban or Legal. New cards that are printed that cause large scale change either have to be accepted and adapted to or Banned. Since that second option is (thankfully) limited we are mostly stuck with the first on all relevant cards. As more and more cards cause change we have more and more streamlined decks that, like Vintage, become the default options. The only difference is we can have them banned outright, ignoring the scarcity that the option is used.

[kombatkiwi]

"Move on from your pet deck"

No, how about you go play standard and be a grinder barnacle turd where you don't get to have a pet-deck and when you play Legacy you just play Ape and Show because it's quick and easy.

What the fuck, do Vintage players say shit like this too or have they worked out that they are FILTHY FUCKING CASUALS? The reason Legacy isn't a 2 deck formats is because almost everyone plays decks that are strictly worse 75s than the top decks - which most people could sleeve up if they wanted to, they just elected not to.

It sounds like you have already accepted that pet decks are shit so why would you get upset when somebody tells you to accept that pet decks are shit? I don't understand the rage. "Move on from your pet deck" doesn't mean "You're only allowed to play UBgr" it means "If you're going to sperg out when you lose with GW KotR or whatever then maybe you should play something else"

@BrainstormApe if you're going to make that argument then what time period is supposed to be 'perfect legacy' where the format is ideal and we can't add any more cards to it? Any date you choose is going to be pretty arbitrary

[a tribe called trest]

Are we sure a deck looking to jam a turn 1 thorn should be looked at as innovation? Seems closer to a symptom of a problem.



Also, two things can be true.

True name nemesis not running roughshod over legacy is a testament to the impressive depth and card pool of the format.

True name nemesis is a hideous card design that doesn't belong in legacy.

[Megadeus]

As much as Tusk Brother Greedy Mike has worked on the steel stomoy deck and did great with it, I don't think it's super innovative. I mean it's legacy shops essentially. Stompy decks have been around forever, this is basically an evolution of what Eldrazi looked like for awhile with thorns and chalice.

[Fox]

The reason Legacy isn't a 2 deck formats is because almost everyone plays decks that are strictly worse 75s than the top decks - which most people could sleeve up if they wanted to, they just elected not to.

I don't know that I agree with that. In vintage you're bleeding slots for cards you must play to compete (thus you end up on the same short list of most efficient wincons); in standard and modern you kinda just play the best good stuff b/c that's really the only strategy that works. In legacy, speaking only of top blue decks, you're maxing out at Ponder/Brainstorm/FoW as the most similar decks have to be - the maindeck similarities completely stop there between say grixis Delver, SnS, and miracles.

You can't really play any format other than legacy with a shared core in such completely different ways - and this is only one competitive core. Other formats have different cores, but there really aren't equally good ways to play them differently and the overall amount of [competitive] cores are still finite. Note also how a core like Ponder/BS/FoW doesn't really dictate at all how a game will be won or lost; you still have to choose a method and insert the pieces - this is also especially true of the Tomb/City/Chalice core. If you break down legacy you will mostly see Ponder/BS/FoW vs Tomb/City/Chalice vs Cavern/Vial vs Loam/Mox; even if this is all that could compete in legacy, there would be so many decks that correct pet-deck/meta-calls would result in winning strategies. That pet-deck can be an iteration of one of these cores, but the fundamental cores of the legacy field you have to plan against isn't really that varied...and the legacy card pool is plenty large enough to provide creative space for a rogue archetype to target the majority of what it would expect to see.

Balanced representations of blue stew iterations is the only way to really push out innovation; it's just never going to happen b/c the other three cores of legacy are too good against blue stew to not play if that's what you expect to see.

[Crimhead]

@Fox - truly an excellent post. You have described Legacy in a nutshell.

I think a lot of people would be happier to see another Cavern/Vial deck. Apart from the relatively small meta-share, D&T is too prison for a lot of players, and Fish runs CotV and Island.


The reason Legacy isn't a 2 deck formats is because almost everyone plays decks that are strictly worse 75s than the top decks - which most people could sleeve up if they wanted to, they just elected not to.
This is rich.

You'd think a 2 deck format would quickly become a 1 deck format (unless the decks were a perfect even match). Moreover, I can't imagine everybody playing just 2 decks and that not being 100% exploitable to a savvy meta-decker.

Please tell us what 2 decks you are envisioning? I could use another laugh.

[Wilkin]

This is rich.

You'd think a 2 deck format would quickly become a 1 deck format (unless the decks were a perfect even match). Moreover, I can't imagine everybody playing just 2 decks and that not being 100% exploitable to a savvy meta-decker.

Please tell us what 2 decks you are envisioning? I could use another laugh.

Yeah that's an interesting one Crimhead. I'm certainly guilty of always playing Deadguy Ale no matter the meta, but I usually do put up decent results. Which at least to me justifies my decision.

I think the format is fine. I think some people just want to ban anything they don't like, rather than think what is healthy for the format. Deathrite is super powerful but it didn't kill Reanimator or lands at all. They had to make adjustments for sure but those decks can still put up results. And I hate True Name Nemesis and Show and tell but Neither are ban worthy.

In fact, I don't think anything is ban worthy and they could unban a few cards. Frantic Search and Earthcraft for starters.

I do agree that Modern is THE format if you want to brew. You can really build a pile that people haven't seen and do well with it. However, in order to do that WOTC had to ban a ton of cards. This is the format that banned Wild Nacatl of all things. And most cantrips as well are gone too and a lot of the really good mana acceleration.

[Phoenix Ignition]

It's so amusing reading this thread. Why do Legacy players feel the need to talk about things they don't even pretend to follow as if they know what they're talking about?


modern you kinda just play the best good stuff b/c that's really the only strategy that works.

Yeah, dude, like that deck that just won the Pro Tour... the one that just mashes together random good cards like Codex Shredder, Lantern of Insight, Pyxis of Pandemonium and the like. You know, just random good stuff. Pretty similar to the deck that got 3rd place that also just mashes together the best good stuff in its colors like Hollow One, Goblin Lore, Burning Inquiry, and Flamewake Phoenix just because those cards are good in any deck. 2nd place was just more of the same with Bedlam Reveler, Young Pyromancer, and even 1 Manamorphose (the red/green version of the cantrip cartel!).

Sarcasm quotient maxed out before I could get to decks 4-8.

[Mr. Safety]

You made my day.

[maharis]

@Fox - truly an excellent post. You have described Legacy in a nutshell.

I think a lot of people would be happier to see another Cavern/Vial deck. Apart from the relatively small meta-share, D&T is too prison for a lot of players, and Fish runs CotV and Island.

I think it's more that people want to experiment with other engines. Fox's post was excellent, but it's interesting how it almost illustrates the loss of GSZ or Dark Confidant as viable engine cards on their own -- though they do appear in concert with the other engines in the format. 4 BS 4 Ponder 4 Force plus the occasional addition of other cantrips like Probe is so much deck space. Most of the most popular wincons in the format were printed from 2010-2013 -- it's not like you can even play old classics here or exploit newly available interactions with new releases.

[Crimhead]

I think it's more that people want to experiment with other engines...
...it's interesting how it almost illustrates the loss of GSZ or Dark Confidant as viable engine cards on their own -- though they do appear in concert with the other engines in the format.
I think it's less that people want to try new engines (I prefer the term 'core'), and more that people want their pet engine/core in a tier-1 deck.

Such players tend to be extremely biased. In the Maverick heyday, Legacy did not have a competitive Loam/Mox deck nor a competitive CotV/Sol-Land deck. People who think that era was better than today are clearly not interested in diversity of archetype cores - but rather the viability of their favourite core. Then they say all sorts of ridiculous things which are hyperbolic, wrong, and conversational dead-ends. It would be infuriating if I actually cared.

This crowd is also incredibly particular. Elves is an unfair combo deck. Aggro Loam runs CotV, Mox, and Loam. People want a GSZ deck that is fair and doesn't run CotV; and Legacy can never be healthy without such a deck in the top tier.

Edit - I know there are people who are simply bored with the styles of play in the current meta. I have no beef with this, and I'm sorry that established players are not enjoying the format. But when people try to elevate this opinion with claims that Legacy lacks diversity that's just annoying.

[8bit9mm]

I am suddenly under the impression you have never watched someone work out their Doomsday pile on the fly. There is nothing more time intensive that watching Stephen Menendian work out a DD pile.

I mean people write limericks as he does so to pass the time.

There is a big difference between number of cards and complexity of a choice. Recruiter gives you access to more cards but is in no way as difficult or impactful on a game as getting a DD right. The complexity and pressure of the situation means your forced to work all the angles and plan out ahead. That eats time.

I know this is a suuuuuper late reply, but:

I mean, I play DDFT and work out piles (on the fly) fairly regularly, albeit in Legacy, not Vintage where Stephen Menendian piles it up. It's not that hard. Anybody resolving Doomsday should already know what their pile will be before they cast the spell.

I'm not saying DDFT isn't a difficult deck to pilot, but I think the actual level of difficulty is a bit misconstrued from people who care not to understand it's mechanics.

[Lord Seth]

in standard and modern you kinda just play the best good stuff b/c that's really the only strategy that works.Phoenix Ignition has already explained why you're deck wrong about Modern, but this makes little sense as a complaint about Standard either. Now I'm not saying Standard has been good or anything, but its problem has been the exact opposite of goodstuff being the best strategy. They print super-powerful synergies without anything else to fight them with. Look at the most recent round of bans... what was regarded as so overpowered it needed to be banned? There was Energy, a deck based all around the synergies that accompany Energy. And there was also Ramunap Red, which is basically just the newest iteration of Red Deck Wins. Is Red Deck Wins goodstuff now?

[Crimhead]

And there was also Ramunap Red, which is basically just the newest iteration of Red Deck Wins. Is Red Deck Wins goodstuff now?
Arguably, rdw is a pile of the best aggro cards in that colour. There is rarely any synergy. Lighting Bolt is as "goodstuff" as it gets, and most Burn cards are just wannabe Bolts.

That said, in this particular case the offending card was powered by synergy.

[Ephemeron]

Interestingly, Aggro Loam seems to have dropped of the face of the Earth! I wonder, is this because:

The deck leaned heavily on a favourable Miracles match and can no longer compete? Or,
Loam was primarily played (begrudgingly) by Maverick refugees who are back to Maverick now that they no longer feel beaten into playing CotV?


It's still around, especially in the Mid Atlantic region. People here love their Loam decks.

The biggest problem is that Czech Pile is a pretty crappy matchup. The deck trying to grind out opponents with Punishing Fire and Wasteland recursion looks pretty stupid when your opponent has a Leovold in play. The fact that they also play main deck Kolagahn's Command means you cant even cheese them game 1 with a fast Chalice. Fatal Push killing all your threats is also real bad too. If Miracles and Grixis Delver can beat Pile's meta share down a little, then I think you'll start seeing it pop up a lot more. I imagine Aggro Loam would murder that new Miracles deck now that they cant just lock out your punishing fires with counter top.

[Whitefaces]

It's so amusing reading this thread. Why do Legacy players feel the need to talk about things they don't even pretend to follow as if they know what they're talking about?



Yeah, dude, like that deck that just won the Pro Tour... the one that just mashes together random good cards like Codex Shredder, Lantern of Insight, Pyxis of Pandemonium and the like. You know, just random good stuff. Pretty similar to the deck that got 3rd place that also just mashes together the best good stuff in its colors like Hollow One, Goblin Lore, Burning Inquiry, and Flamewake Phoenix just because those cards are good in any deck. 2nd place was just more of the same with Bedlam Reveler, Young Pyromancer, and even 1 Manamorphose (the red/green version of the cantrip cartel!).

Sarcasm quotient maxed out before I could get to decks 4-8.

Here's a reason to come back and read this thread sometimes, needed that morning laugh, thanks!

[Zombie]

To be honest, Vintage is fun but has limited play. As the format grows in Restricted cards the format itself shrinks. There will come a day where the best deck in Vintage is a Highlander deck and when that day comes there will be no answer. That and right now you are stuck playing a known element to do well, even if you can change up how it works some. (Golden Gun Oath for example)

The most healthy format right now is Modern, Legacy is drifting towards the Vintage situation where known elements are really all that is viable. This is not really a point of debate or complaint, it is the outcome of the formats identity. Ban or Legal. New cards that are printed that cause large scale change either have to be accepted and adapted to or Banned. Since that second option is (thankfully) limited we are mostly stuck with the first on all relevant cards. As more and more cards cause change we have more and more streamlined decks that, like Vintage, become the default options. The only difference is we can have them banned outright, ignoring the scarcity that the option is used.

Pauper is plenty healthy. The Tron decks are actual decks (Primarily UR control (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/925958), UG turbofog (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/911466) and GR Ramp (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/921625) (2nd example (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/pauper-wubrg-45186))) that do big things but don't get to go T3 Karn, gg, but Tron still gives them filthy-feeling advantage and a preposterous ease in casting big bombs. Cantrip cartel is represented in Mono-U (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/925964) and UR Skred Delver (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/925959), red and green have traditionally been well-represented in Stompy (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/919050) and Burn (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/926035) but recently Elves (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/925961) and Monoblack Control (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/925966) have had a resurgence and monoW Heroic (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/925970) has become a thing. The only thing the format really lacks is some more really competitive combo decks. Even then, the fringe stuff (Inside Out (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/915862), Familiars (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/893673), UR Fiend (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/925985)) has gotten better than the jokes they used to be. There's diversity in strategic archetype, in colors used, in amount of colors used, in engines, in threats. It's not exactly a brewer's paradise anymore, the power level's been lifted pretty high, but the existing stuff offers plenty of choice. A lot of it probably happens because the mana is kinda crappy - you need efficiency, and splashing a color is a huge cost in a way it is in probably no other constructed format.


Yeah that's an interesting one Crimhead. I'm certainly guilty of always playing Deadguy Ale no matter the meta, but I usually do put up decent results. Which at least to me justifies my decision.

I think the format is fine. I think some people just want to ban anything they don't like, rather than think what is healthy for the format. Deathrite is super powerful but it didn't kill Reanimator or lands at all. They had to make adjustments for sure but those decks can still put up results. And I hate True Name Nemesis and Show and tell but Neither are ban worthy.

In fact, I don't think anything is ban worthy and they could unban a few cards. Frantic Search and Earthcraft for starters.

I do agree that Modern is THE format if you want to brew. You can really build a pile that people haven't seen and do well with it. However, in order to do that WOTC had to ban a ton of cards. This is the format that banned Wild Nacatl of all things. And most cantrips as well are gone too and a lot of the really good mana acceleration.

I hated basically every banning in Pauper to date, a lot of them weren't really necessary and killed off really fun decks, yet the format is in a way better spot right now than it's ever been before. Modern's apparently in a similar place.

[Fox]

It's so amusing reading this thread. Why do Legacy players feel the need to talk about things they don't even pretend to follow as if they know what they're talking about?



Yeah, dude, like that deck that just won the Pro Tour... the one that just mashes together random good cards like Codex Shredder, Lantern of Insight, Pyxis of Pandemonium and the like. You know, just random good stuff. Pretty similar to the deck that got 3rd place that also just mashes together the best good stuff in its colors like Hollow One, Goblin Lore, Burning Inquiry, and Flamewake Phoenix just because those cards are good in any deck. 2nd place was just more of the same with Bedlam Reveler, Young Pyromancer, and even 1 Manamorphose (the red/green version of the cantrip cartel!).

Sarcasm quotient maxed out before I could get to decks 4-8.
You've missed the point of core strategies and defining a format. I would assume these red decks you've listed off all run Faithless Looting, and that would be a better example of a core strategy. However, this is modern...so if the Looting core begins to enable multiple competitive strategies (particularly graveyard-independent strategies as well) to the point that a player assessing modern has to have a plan for approaching the diverse archetypal ideas of the Looting core....then I'd expect a pretty quick ban. The reason you can list off new decks proving modern's brand of diversity goes hand in hand with banning off any cards that would give the format central identity (meaning being able to inject itself into the meta-game from multiple different angles).

Modern is diverse in the sense that isolated strategies generally have cards central to their deck's specific function only. In modern and standard you see nearly 1:1 ratio of a group of core cards to one specific optimal wincon/idea of how a win will be pursued. Modern has a growing card pool and more importantly insular strategies, so of course we would expect to see new decks (they are all concerned with their own engine rather than disruption not called discard & removal). Look at the amount of slots Lantern needs to 'do its thing' - the sheer volume of the cards it needs to function are all tied into the wincon; the strength of its strategy cannot be shared. In the case of Hyper-Sluff, the only outlets for heavy employing of draw&discard are already knowable. Keep adding in modern decks and you realize all the format really is, is an agglomeration of essentially random matchups - so yes it's diverse....but in an unnatural way, ensured by doing things like banning DRS, SFM, P-Fire, Depths, Ponder, etc.

As @Crimhead points out my use of "good stuff" has more to do with most ideal rather than only Baleful Strix analogues.

@Lord Seth I'm not complaining about standard or modern, I'm pointing out that these formats are particularly known to ban cards which become cores through use by multiple archetypes. The idea that a [proactive] core does not belong to one deck/strategy alone is not native to standard and modern players.

[kombatkiwi]

You've missed the point of core strategies and defining a format. I would assume these red decks you've listed off all run Faithless Looting, and that would be a better example of a core strategy. However, this is modern...so if the Looting core begins to enable multiple competitive strategies (particularly graveyard-independent strategies as well) to the point that a player assessing modern has to have a plan for approaching the diverse archetypal ideas of the Looting core....then I'd expect a pretty quick ban. The reason you can list off new decks proving modern's brand of diversity goes hand in hand with banning off any cards that would give the format central identity (meaning being able to inject itself into the meta-game from multiple different angles).

Modern is diverse in the sense that isolated strategies generally have cards central to their deck's specific function only. In modern and standard you see nearly 1:1 ratio of a group of core cards to one specific optimal wincon/idea of how a win will be pursued. Modern has a growing card pool and more importantly insular strategies, so of course we would expect to see new decks (they are all concerned with their own engine rather than disruption not called discard & removal). Look at the amount of slots Lantern needs to 'do its thing' - the sheer volume of the cards it needs to function are all tied into the wincon; the strength of its strategy cannot be shared. In the case of Hyper-Sluff, the only outlets for heavy employing of draw&discard are already knowable. Keep adding in modern decks and you realize all the format really is, is an agglomeration of essentially random matchups - so yes it's diverse....but in an unnatural way, ensured by doing things like banning DRS, SFM, P-Fire, Depths, Ponder, etc.

As @Crimhead points out my use of "good stuff" has more to do with most ideal rather than only Baleful Strix analogues.

@Lord Seth I'm not complaining about standard or modern, I'm pointing out that these formats are particularly known to ban cards which become cores through use by multiple archetypes. The idea that a [proactive] core does not belong to one deck/strategy alone is not native to standard and modern players.

So many words but so little said. Do you even have a point or are you just rambling?

"In standard and modern you kinda just play the best good stuff b/c that's really the only strategy that works" this claim has been totally BTFO. Saying people missed the point is obviously moving the goalposts. If you suddenly redefine 'good stuff' to mean 'the best card for the deck' rather than 'individually powerful, non-synergy dependent card' then you've destroyed all meaning of the phrase, obviously every constructed deck in mtg history has tried to be as 'good' as possible by playing 'stuff', so what are you even trying to say?

Allow me to rephrase your argument in a different but entirely equivalent way


I would assume these red decks you've listed off all run Faithless Looting, and that would be a better example of a core card. However, this is modern...so if Faithless Looting (there is no 'Looting Core', there is no other overlap between Mardu Reveler or Dredge or RB Hollow One) begins to encompass a dominant share of the metagame (particularly graveyard-independent strategies as well) to the point that a player assessing modern has to expect to play against it the vast majority of the time....then I'd expect a pretty quick ban. The reason you can list off new decks proving modern's brand of diversity goes hand in hand with banning off any cards that are so powerful that the vast majority of people would play them.

Wow, a totally non-controversial and unoriginal summary of why cards get banned in all formats


Keep adding in modern decks and you realize all the format really is, is an agglomeration of essentially random matchups - so yes it's diverse....but in an unnatural way, ensured by doing things like banning DRS, SFM, P-Fire, Depths, Ponder, etc.
"Bans are unnatural REEEEEEEE"

[Dice_Box]

Keep it civil.

[Crimhead]

Pauper is plenty healthy. The Tron decks are actual decks (Primarily UR control (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/925958), UG turbofog (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/911466) and GR Ramp (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/921625) (2nd example (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/pauper-wubrg-45186))) that do big things but don't get to go T3 Karn, gg, but Tron still gives them filthy-feeling advantage and a preposterous ease in casting big bombs. Cantrip cartel is represented in Mono-U (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/925964) and UR Skred Delver (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/925959), red and green have traditionally been well-represented in Stompy (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/919050) and Burn (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/926035) but recently Elves (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/925961) and Monoblack Control (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/925966) have had a resurgence and monoW Heroic (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/925970) has become a thing. The only thing the format really lacks is some more really competitive combo decks. Even then, the fringe stuff (Inside Out (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/915862), Familiars (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/893673), UR Fiend (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/925985)) has gotten better than the jokes they used to be. There's diversity in strategic archetype, in colors used, in amount of colors used, in engines, in threats. It's not exactly a brewer's paradise anymore, the power level's been lifted pretty high, but the existing stuff offers plenty of choice. A lot of it probably happens because the mana is kinda crappy - you need efficiency, and splashing a color is a huge cost in a way it is in probably no other constructed format.
A bit off topic, but I truly think Pauper is going to save Eternal Magic from dying a slow and sad death.

If you like eternal formats and old school cards, but still want to have opponents going forward, I suggest supporting any local initiatives to get it running.

[CptHaddock]

A bit off topic, but I truly think Pauper is going to save Eternal Magic from dying a slow and sad death.

If you like eternal formats and old school cards, but still want to have opponents going forward, I suggest supporting any local initiatives to get it running.

Why would you ever want to play Legacy Lite when you can just play Legacy?

[Crimhead]

Why would you ever want to play Legacy Lite when you can just play Legacy?
I wouldn't.

But I'm not 100% sure that we'll continue to get 8+ Legacy players once/month in the years to come. If I want to play anything that resembles Legacy in 5 or 10 years, Pauper might be the best bet.

Also there may be deck options not viable in Legacy like Ponza or MBC, with less saturation of good-stuff midrange and tempo. It almost looks like a cross between Legacy and '94.

[Phoenix Ignition]

You've missed the point of core strategies and defining a format. I would assume these red decks you've listed off all run Faithless Looting, and that would be a better example of a core strategy.

You're lucky my sarcasm has recharged.

Faithless looting is obviously the best card in the format and it clearly shows how your original point is correct even though that wasn't your point at all. I mean just check out that deck in 4th place, UR Pyromancer. It also plays the best red cantrip, Faithless Looting. Although to be fair it plays the blue versions of that card instead (Serum Visions, Opt, and Ancestral Vision) and actually runs 0 Faithless Lootings, but that's pretty close to your argument too so let me fix it for you:


You've missed the point of core strategies and defining a format. I would assume these decks you've listed off all run any generic cantrip, and that would be a better example of a core strategy.

Ah, once again, right you are! It's pretty obvious when you think about it and take decks 5-8 into account. Two 5 color humans, Abzan, and Jund Death's Shadow. Jund Death's Shadow runs the colorless cantrip cartel of Mishra's Bauble (which is completely homogenizing the metagame with it's 8 total appearances in top 8) and green's obvious best of Traverse the Ulvenwald. Abzan is running maindeck *overwhelmingly best strategy of any cantrips* Nihil Spellbomb, but I think we all know Dark Confidant is basically just a *best strategy cantrip* in a wig. Lastly, the biggest cantrippy deck of all, 5 color humans, uses the most ubiquitous cantrip of Horizon Canopy! Can you believe there were 8 copies of this card in top 8? Metagame homogenization incoming!

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

So with that all in mind, does that make Young Pyromancer the Deathrite Shaman of modern?

[Whitefaces]

#banfaithlesslooting

[Fox]

So many words but so little said. Do you even have a point or are you just rambling?

"In standard and modern you kinda just play the best good stuff b/c that's really the only strategy that works" this claim has been totally BTFO. Saying people missed the point is obviously moving the goalposts. If you suddenly redefine 'good stuff' to mean 'the best card for the deck' rather than 'individually powerful, non-synergy dependent card' then you've destroyed all meaning of the phrase, obviously every constructed deck in mtg history has tried to be as 'good' as possible by playing 'stuff', so what are you even trying to say?

Wow, a totally non-controversial and unoriginal summary of why cards get banned in all formats

"Bans are unnatural REEEEEEEE"
I don't much care to continue to entertain this absurd notion that the use of good stuff was somehow the point worth debating. Standard and modern don't have a meta dictated by cores, they have collections of essentially random insular strategies/decks [you can agree or disagree]. Their deck development is wincon driven, which binds how a deck achieves competitiveness with specific types of wincons/strategies that deck must employ [you can agree or disagree]. By corollary, the development of and banlist in these two formats is on some level designed to prevent interchangeable cores from existing; which further differentiates the meaningfulness of the term "deck" as a way to monitor a metagame [you can agree or disagree].

You have misidentified the key point I initially made which is in response to this sentiment:


The reason Legacy isn't a 2 deck formats is because almost everyone plays decks that are strictly worse 75s than the top decks - which most people could sleeve up if they wanted to, they just elected not to.

Playing Ponder/BS/FoW or Cavern/Vial or Mox/Loam or Tomb/City/Chalice is why a legacy deck can matter, because employing a core is the easiest [though not the only, see Elves/NicFit/BR Reanimator/Maverick/Burn & others] path to competitiveness. When a core is behind it, the deck name doesn't really matter; all that tells us is how it wins, not why it is viable.

It is not unfair to say that standard and modern decks examined only as how they work, without preconceived notions, still generally telegraph the wincon type and what their (usually) single playstyle can be.

With the Faithless Looting core stuff, you go on a tangential attack about Faithless Looting the card vs the 'core' idea of critical mass draw&discard. By itself Faithless Looting is the greatest offender, but you can't really make reliable GY-combo [dredge] or discount from hand-combo without other cards beside it doing the same-ish thing. When you have a collection of cards doing the draw&discard thing *and* an opponent no longer has a RiP-type singular SB card which works (because Faithless decks could enact credible strategies without their yard at all; this isn't the case yet in modern, see Reveler), you would have a core in modern because draw&discard expresses itself in varied ways. That doesn't suddenly make the Looting core the next Eye of Ugin/Eldrazi epidemic; it just means a core group of draw&discard effects can enable differing strategies that attack from different zones...and modern [and standard] ban shared tools simply b/c they are shareable.

To bring this back to legacy, many arguments in this thread are tied to cards being too prevalent as they are shared across multiple archetypes (DRS most recently, shared b/c it is a powerful card). These viewpoints are generally limited to card 'x' at 'y' percentage of the meta, which doesn't really mean much without additional reasoning.

[pinkfrosting]

I don't much care to continue to entertain this absurd notion that the use of good stuff was somehow the point worth debating. Standard and modern don't have a meta dictated by cores, they have collections of essentially random insular strategies/decks [you can agree or disagree]. Their deck development is wincon driven, which binds how a deck achieves competitiveness with specific types of wincons/strategies that deck must employ [you can agree or disagree]. By corollary, the development of and banlist in these two formats is on some level designed to prevent interchangeable cores from existing; which further differentiates the meaningfulness of the term "deck" as a way to monitor a metagame [you can agree or disagree].

You have misidentified the key point I initially made which is in response to this sentiment:



Playing Ponder/BS/FoW or Cavern/Vial or Mox/Loam or Tomb/City/Chalice is why a legacy deck can matter, because employing a core is the easiest [though not the only, see Elves/NicFit/BR Reanimator/Maverick/Burn & others] path to competitiveness. When a core is behind it, the deck name doesn't really matter; all that tells us is how it wins, not why it is viable.

It is not unfair to say that standard and modern decks examined only as how they work, without preconceived notions, still generally telegraph the wincon type and what their (usually) single playstyle can be.

With the Faithless Looting core stuff, you go on a tangential attack about Faithless Looting the card vs the 'core' idea of critical mass draw&discard. By itself Faithless Looting is the greatest offender, but you can't really make reliable GY-combo [dredge] or discount from hand-combo without other cards beside it doing the same-ish thing. When you have a collection of cards doing the draw&discard thing *and* an opponent no longer has a RiP-type singular SB card which works (because Faithless decks could enact credible strategies without their yard at all; this isn't the case yet in modern, see Reveler), you would have a core in modern because draw&discard expresses itself in varied ways. That doesn't suddenly make the Looting core the next Eye of Ugin/Eldrazi epidemic; it just means a core group of draw&discard effects can enable differing strategies that attack from different zones...and modern [and standard] ban shared tools simply b/c they are shareable.

To bring this back to legacy, many arguments in this thread are tied to cards being too prevalent as they are shared across multiple archetypes (DRS most recently, shared b/c it is a powerful card). These viewpoints are generally limited to card 'x' at 'y' percentage of the meta, which doesn't really mean much without additional reasoning.

Most of your points seem to be debating the semantics of terms that you define and then redefine yourself. If "Ponder/BS/FoW" is a "core" how is "Cryptic/Snap/Serum visions" not a "core?" Because at least 2 variants of UWx control, blue moon, grixis control, all of which are established but also distinctively different modern decks, use that "core." How about Eldrazi Tron, RG tron, and G tron? They all use the "core" of tronlands and a similar suite of colorless bigstuff.

There are plenty of tools shared across very powerful modern decks that haven't been banned. People have been asking for a tronland ban for years but wizards seems content letting in stay in the format. Wizards has been pretty open that their modern ban philosophy has been to keep the format relatively slow and limit turn 3 combo decks. They allow plenty of powerful, archetype-defining cards to stick around though.

[Ronald Deuce]

The reason Legacy isn't a 2 deck formats is because almost everyone plays decks that are strictly worse 75s than the top decks - which most people could sleeve up if they wanted to, they just elected not to.

"Ferraris are the best cars. If you drive a car that's not a Ferrari, you are choosing not to drive a Ferrari."

[Dice_Box]

With respect, a lot of the older Legacy players (The ones with larger collections) choose to play weird shit to keep the game entertaining.

[Fox]

Most of your points seem to be debating the semantics of terms that you define and then redefine yourself. If "Ponder/BS/FoW" is a "core" how is "Cryptic/Snap/Serum visions" not a "core?" Because at least 2 variants of UWx control, blue moon, grixis control, all of which are established but also distinctively different modern decks, use that "core." How about Eldrazi Tron, RG tron, and G tron? They all use the "core" of tronlands and a similar suite of colorless bigstuff.

Not trying to be overly harsh here, but those cards aren't good enough to care about. They're certainly reasonable but they can't dictate a format.

If everyone in legacy collectively decided to never play Cavern/Vial, Loam/Mox, nor Tomb/City/Chalice then you'd have a very short list of best decks all on the Ponder/BS/FoW core. The format would look like Delver (mostly grixis), Czech/Blade-type decks, miracles, SnS [pretty sure I haven't missed one]. Right after that list you'd have ANT as a major player. In that meta you could certainly compete with similar decks like Standstill, Aluren, TES, Shardless, OmniTell, Infect, and others that all mostly play by the established norms of Ponder/BS/FoW. From the outside you might find success if you string together a series of good matchups playing as Elves, B/R Reanimator, or Burn (it's gonna be a really short list here). Past this though, you wouldn't really be able to innovate in legacy until a new anti-cantrip core appeared because the pressure of unchecked consistency spanning aggro, midrange, combo, and control will push out most dissimilar, wincon-based strategies. The exception to that rule would be one specific deck strategy in the blue stew core proving to be clearly better than any other (i.e. SDT + Counterbalance) allowing essentially random, wincon-based deck development to resume as they only have to attack one specific deck to find a niche with competitive win percentage.

Modern and standard don't have any consistency-based cores to force everyone else to react to them or else be pushed out of the format. That combination [Serum Vis./SCM/Cryptic] does not unite a credible list of decks such that wincon-based development basically stops being viable. Decks that employ that combination join the field of essentially random, insular decks which is then called a metagame. Now if you were to unban the cards like DRS, SFM, and Ponder (you could go further and unban Preordain and JTMS), then that format would have to develop very focused cores to oppose that kind of consistency. Those cores would likely have to be dominated by other banned cards like P-Fire and Dark Depths*.

Vintage had a different comparison to legacy than modern/standard. The main point was that legacy's current four cores allow for too many specific decks to infer that our metagame is determined by people not playing the best 'x' decks. It's not just that each core is so different, but also the added effect of each deck within the same core operating in such varied ways, that makes diversity [within a very real and definable framework] inevitable. For some reason people have honed in on the term "good stuff" instead of the inference that in legacy we don't really spend that much time predicting/reacting to/developing towards specific wincons so much as a general sense of comparative levels of competitive fitness.

*Modern is pretty lacking when it comes to the interactive axis of mana denial, but I think the with those kinds of unbans would still lead to the exclusion of Urza-tron based deck construction. That's not really the point though; no matter how you color Urza-tron decks, they're all trying to do the same thing and 'go big' with an otherwise uncastable bomb. In other words, a one-dimensional strategy preventing the assembly of Urza-tron translates to winning the game as the opponent. In the case of Dark Depths being hypothetically legal, a more efficient 'go big' alternative would likely be more responsible for pushing out Urza-tron than an enhanced ability for a consistency core-using deck to efficiently and reliably produce correct interaction.

@DiceBox true, but there's a loose baseline where quality of wincon meets "and how does DRS let me get away with this consistently." :tongue:

[Dice_Box]

The closest to a "Core" Modern had for a very long time was a purely reactive set of cards that you could see as their Force of Will. Thoughtseize, Inquisition and Lili. Around that built up a few heavy hitters and then a few less prominent builds. (Obliterator Rock being my personal favourite)

These days that has been somewhat ripped asunder, not because the cards are not all there but because shit like Tron make playing those decks a pain. But Thoughtseize and Inquisition still hold their place. Everyone wants interaction. Well, most people.

[kombatkiwi]

Not trying to be overly harsh here, but those cards aren't good enough to care about. They're certainly reasonable but they can't dictate a format.


This is circular reasoning:

"Modern doesn't have any deck cores, because wizards bans them"
"What about these legal sets of cards that are common to different decks?"
"No, they don't count as cores"
"Why not?"
"They're not good enough to count as cores because wotc hasn't banned them"

A huge problem with the 'discussion' going on here is that you are trying to argue 2 completely different points at once. My understanding of your arguments are:
1) It's impossible for Legacy to truly be a 2 deck format because if 1-2 decks somehow became the entire metagame, the cards exist to build another style of deck that could effectively attack that situation. (The way that you choose to phrase this is "one 'core' cannot ever became too dominant, because it inherently has a poor matchup vs these other 'cores')
2) Legacy is somehow the only special snowflake format that has this quality

From what I can tell most people have a problem with 'point 2'. People don't necessarily disagree (or even outright agree, cf Crimhead) with 'point 1'. (I guess Steve disagrees with point 1).


If everyone in legacy collectively decided to never play Cavern/Vial, Loam/Mox, nor Tomb/City/Chalice then you'd have a very short list of best decks all on the Ponder/BS/FoW core. The format would look like Delver (mostly grixis), Czech/Blade-type decks, miracles, SnS [pretty sure I haven't missed one]. Right after that list you'd have ANT as a major player. In that meta you could certainly compete with similar decks like Standstill, Aluren, TES, Shardless, OmniTell, Infect, and others that all mostly play by the established norms of Ponder/BS/FoW. From the outside you might find success if you string together a series of good matchups playing as Elves, B/R Reanimator, or Burn (it's gonna be a really short list here). Past this though, you wouldn't really be able to innovate in legacy until a new anti-cantrip core appeared because the pressure of unchecked consistency spanning aggro, midrange, combo, and control will push out most dissimilar, wincon-based strategies. The exception to that rule would be one specific deck strategy in the blue stew core proving to be clearly better than any other (i.e. SDT + Counterbalance) allowing essentially random, wincon-based deck development to resume as they only have to attack one specific deck to find a niche with competitive win percentage.
This paragraph is only relevant to point 1 (it's only talking about legacy).
You say that if you ban all the good decks not playing BS/Ponder/FoW, then the only good decks become ones playing Brainstorm/Ponder/FoW. This is not an interesting idea and I think most people would agree with you (how can they not, it's essentially tautological).
By the last part, I assume you mean that if (for example) everybody played Miracles, then some kind of Cloudpost deck could become popular in response. I think most people would agree with this as well (although I don't see how this is 'random').


Modern and standard don't have any consistency-based cores to force everyone else to react to them or else be pushed out of the format. That combination [Serum Vis./SCM/Cryptic] does not unite a credible list of decks such that wincon-based development basically stops being viable. Decks that employ that combination join the field of essentially random, insular decks which is then called a metagame. Now if you were to unban the cards like DRS, SFM, and Ponder (you could go further and unban Preordain and JTMS), then that format would have to develop very focused cores to oppose that kind of consistency. Those cores would likely have to be dominated by other banned cards like P-Fire and Dark Depths*.
Now we're onto point 2: You are comparing legacy to other things.

Standard absolutely had this core until the most recent ban: Rogue Refiner and Attune (and by extension Cub and Virtuoso and particularly Servant of the Conduit). These cards were certainly consistency based. When people refer to consistency they generally refer to fixing your draws or your mana. Refiner and Attune are cantrips after all, like Ponder and Brainstorm, and Servant helps to accelerate out your other cards, like DRS. If you couldn't beat the deck with these cards in it then you had a very low chance of winning a standard tournament during the period that they were legal. Therefore, they seem to have pushed other cards out of the format, so the attune shell also seems to meet this criteria for being a 'core' (although I think this is a pointless distinction because you could say this about any top-tier deck in any format)

You say that SFM would warp modern by providing too much 'consistency'. But by this definition of 'core' how does SFM qualify?
It doesn't stabilize your mana, and it doesn't help fix your draws. It's a tutor, but only in a very narrow fashion (and Steelshaper's Gift already exists in modern to emulate the tutor effect for less mana, and that card is unplayable). Why does this count as part of a 'consistency core' then? Is it actually just because it's a really good card? And things like Cryptic/Snap or Mine/Tower/Plant don't count, despite being cantrips and enabling mana and appearing alongside each other in different decks, simply because they are not as good? If this is the case then essentially all you must be saying is that:
1) SFM is really good
2) If you unbanned SFM it would probably be really good in modern and a lot of people would play it
3) People would try to adjust their decks to try to beat the large number of people that are playing SFM

Again, most people would probably accept this argument. But it has nothing to do with the suggestion that modern does or does not feature 'cores' of cards. Your original post laying out legacy 'cores' of BSto/Po/Fo and Mox/Loam and Vial/Cavern makes it sound like your definition of core is "set of cards that work well together in competitive decks". When people identify similar sets of cards in current modern, you say they don't count, and your only argument you have given for why these modern cards aren't cores is that those cards aren't good (compared to the cores that exist in legacy) or that they aren't banned. It doesn't make any sense.


Vintage had a different comparison to legacy than modern/standard. The main point was that legacy's current four cores allow for too many specific decks to infer that our metagame is determined by people not playing the best 'x' decks. It's not just that each core is so different, but also the added effect of each deck within the same core operating in such varied ways, that makes diversity [within a very real and definable framework] inevitable. For some reason people have honed in on the term "good stuff" instead of the inference that in legacy we don't really spend that much time predicting/reacting to/developing towards specific wincons so much as a general sense of comparative levels of competitive fitness.

This paragraph is so hard to parse it literally gave me a migraine. Let me try and rephrase it.
"The legacy metagame is balanced because there are multiple different viable decks that can be built in different ways. [People have honed in on the term "good stuff" because the way you used it was moronic]. In legacy people don't spend time thinking about specific wincons, rather they just think about how good a deck is."

Ok. That first sentence is reasonable. The second sentence is absolute nonsense. I shouldn't even have to address it.
All of the following can be observed on this board:
- People discussing whether TNN the wincon is too good for legacy or is acceptable
- People tailoring their removal to kill TNN the wincon (-1/-1 effects and edicts)
- People tailoring their creature suite (the wincons) to consider the creature suite (the wincons) that the opponents use, e.g. a big part of the discussion on Mandrills vs Goyf in RUG is the benefit vs TNN and Angler respectively
- People tailoring their removal to kill Marit Lage the wincon specifically (e.g. Delver decks playing Dead//Gone)
- Nyx Fit seriously considering playing Sandwurm Convergence partly because all the Show and Tell wincons have flying
- People highly value having access to Karakas because the wincons for SNT/Reanimator are legendary and so is Marit Lage
etc

The problem with a statement like this ("general sense of comparative levels of competitive fitness" [retch]) is that it's so vague and meaningless that it can't be attacked. I anticipate a response like:
"What I actually meant was that people think about the meta in general terms, e.g. 'DNT isn't very good against Czech Pile because it's weak to Kolaghans Command"
"So DNT players are trying to find a different WINCON for the main or the side that isn't artifact based?"
"Wrong again, what I meant was hurdurdur"


*Modern is pretty lacking when it comes to the interactive axis of mana denial, but I think the with those kinds of unbans would still lead to the exclusion of Urza-tron based deck construction. That's not really the point though; no matter how you color Urza-tron decks, they're all trying to do the same thing and 'go big' with an otherwise uncastable bomb. In other words, a one-dimensional strategy preventing the assembly of Urza-tron translates to winning the game as the opponent. In the case of Dark Depths being hypothetically legal, a more efficient 'go big' alternative would likely be more responsible for pushing out Urza-tron than an enhanced ability for a consistency core-using deck to efficiently and reliably produce correct interaction.

- A hypothetical mondo-consistency deck based around JTMS and Ponder would probably one of the best matchups for Tron, see Miracles vs Cloudpost. Or did you mean unbanning Punishing Fire and Dark Depths would kill tron? That is going to take some explaining seeing as Punishing Fire doesn't interact with Tron at all, and Tron is possibly one of the decks most well equipped to fight Depths considering 1.) It has a lot of land tutors to find Field of Ruin or Ghost Quarter 2.) As a more extreme answer Tron can play Blood Sun and not be affected by it 3.) People would probably respond to the threat of Marit Lage by playing Path to Exile decks which Tron is favoured against

- "No matter how you color Delver decks, they're all trying to do the same thing and go small with a bunch of 1 mana spells. In other words, a one dimensional strategy preventing the casting of 1 mana spells translates to winning the game as the opponent" Actually I don't even understand what your point is here. Are you just trying to say that Tron decks are bad? They obviously aren't, just like Delver isn't.

- If I'm reading this last sentence correctly it seems you do recognise that Jace sucks vs Karn. However, I'm not sure what the 'more efficient go big alternative' is. If it already existed then wouldn't people play it already? Does it somehow need Dark Depths in it to work? It seems like you're reaching for something like "tron is BAD, bad means NOT CORE, so NO cores in modern", but I've already gone over this

[Tittliewinks22]

I can't imagine anyone who actually reads these essays of an argument...

Modern cannot be used as a measure for legacy and vice versa...

#unban mind twist, Earth craft, yawgmoth bargain

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

I think they are trying to see who can cram the most five dollar words in one post.

[CptHaddock]

https://i.imgur.com/5A0Tv7B.jpg

[menloe]

oi m8s hell is other magic players

[Stevestamopz]

"Ferraris are the best cars. If you drive a car that's not a Ferrari, you are choosing not to drive a Ferrari."

Weak strawman.

I don't even care to continue this discussion, it's so tiring reading the essays and ad hominems in this thread, I just wanted to point out how stupid your comment was.

[Ronald Deuce]

Weak strawman.

I don't even care to continue this discussion, it's so tiring reading the essays and ad hominems in this thread, I just wanted to point out how stupid your comment was.

Good thing the "debate" is over. That's also not a strawman, but whatever; can't expect people to know everything.

EDIT: Also, clearly Lightning Bolt is the "core" of Modern because it's played in an entire 28 percent of decks. Ban Lightning Bolt. It's stifling the metagame.

(Fox, I'm on your side in this one.)

[Crimhead]

My understanding of your arguments are:
1) It's impossible for Legacy to truly be a 2 deck format because if 1-2 decks somehow became the entire metagame, the cards exist to build another style of deck that could effectively attack that situation. (The way that you choose to phrase this is "one 'core' cannot ever became too dominant, because it inherently has a poor matchup vs these other 'cores')
2) Legacy is somehow the only special snowflake format that has this quality

From what I can tell most people have a problem with 'point 2'. People don't necessarily disagree (or even outright agree, cf Crimhead) with 'point 1'. (I guess Steve disagrees with point 1).
A 2-deck format is possible in theory. It would require:

2 decks with a precisely 50:50 match-up (otherwise it's a 1-deck format)
No possible deck that preys on both (or even a deck that is unfavoured vs one, but even more favoured vs the other).
Obviously it's a bold claim to suggest there are two such decks (and carries a heavy burden of proof). But anybody who thinks the format is solvable in this manner is invited to name the 2 decks and thoroughly embarrass themselves.

In other news, another good show for Tempo/Stompy:
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=18145&d=312501&f=LE
I wonder if that is one of the only 2 truly viable decks in this format?
:laugh:

[Stevestamopz]

Grixis Delver has proven to be the best deck in the format right now. It is 4% higher represented than any other deck. Imagine if every Canadian, BURG, BUG Delver player just played the best Delver 75 instead of playing delver variants they liked?

What, is it so hard to imagine that the best performing deck with even across the board matchups is actually... the best deck in the format? Lmao. Czech Pile I am told is the next best performing deck and I would happily rate it as the 2nd best deck in the format.

Do you really think it's so absurd that people would voluntarily choose to play fun decks over good decks in casual card games?


But anybody who thinks the format is solvable in this manner is invited to name the 2 decks and thoroughly embarrass themselves.


Imagine getting this worked up debating someone on the other side of the world about a children's card game. Have you never had someone disagree with you?

[AznSeal]

The best engine is glimpse/heritage druid/nettle sentinel. No other deck can you play 4 Drs, 4 ancestral recall, and 4 tinker.

[Undomian]

The best engine is glimpse/heritage druid/nettle sentinel. No other deck can you play 4 Drs, 4 ancestral recall, and 4 tinker.

#BanElves

[Barook]

Jace and Bloodbraid Elf have been unbanned for Modern today. Looks like JMS is going to skyrocket in price, the reprinting in M25 nonewithstanding.

[Mr. Safety]

Don't be trolling. You serious?

[meffeo]

Don't be trolling. You serious?

Serious indeed (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/february-12-2018-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2018-02-12)

[maharis]

Earthcraft still too strong for Legacy

[Dice_Box]

Fuck, Lantern is harder to play now. Oh wait, Needle.

[maharis]

Fuck, Lantern is harder to play now. Oh wait, Needle.

Or just play jace yourself, it's super good with lantern of insight and behind ensaring bridge

All I want is for some lantern player to terminus in a GP off a jace so i can watch the twitch chat meltdown

[Barook]

Don't be trolling. You serious?
The unban has nothing to do with balancing. Modern was in a really good place right now. But since they have to sell M25 packs next month, they had to go and fuck it up in the quest for more money.

Maybe they would be better off if they got their shit together and printed new duals without any shitty disadvantages, considering how desperate they seem for revenue now.

[Ace/Homebrew]

The unban has nothing to do with balancing. Modern was in a really good place right now. But since they have to sell M25 packs next month, they had to go and fuck it up in the quest for more money.
I agree Modern is in a good place currently, but I don't think these unbans will ruin that... What's your thought process on how this will ruin Modern?

[Mr. Safety]

I was already happy with modern and I think this is a great way to increase popularity of an already popular format. I'll be Jace-ing in modern for sure, maybe Bloodbraid-ing too. I certainly appreciate this over banning Lantern or some other nonsense because 'deck iz too guud, BAN!!!'

If you are complaining about losing to Jace fateseal, dude, Lantern is the fateseal fucking deck. The repeatable Brainstorm is really powerful of course, but one of the most played cards in the format just happens to deal 3 damage. Without free countermagic, Jace is a lot more fragile.

Bloodbraid Elf is a bit of a quandary. I think it will be powerful to play Bloodbraid into Kolaghan's Command, but I don't know if it's too powerful. Jace's presence in the format means a lot more counterspells will be played, and if that's the case KCommand will get countered and Bloodbraid becomes a 3/2 haste for 4, which is perfectly fair. I'm looking forward to jamming games in this new Modern format.

I'm really surprised at WOTC's reticence for unbanning cards in Legacy. It would be a way to keep the format from getting too stale, which honestly it is becoming for me. I'm not saying it's bad, I love the format, but it's getting predictable. I want the Wild West!

[Megadeus]

Earthcraft still too strong for Legacy

I lol'd. Can't have squirrel combo taking over the format. I'm glad we only have reasonable stuff like show and tell for Griselbrand

[Zombie]

I lol'd. Can't have squirrel combo taking over the format. I'm glad we only have reasonable stuff like show and tell for Griselbrand

Three-mana Bargains are naturally less scary than infinite Squirrels. I mean, Griseltard only has 7 power!

[Tittliewinks22]

Three-mana Bargains are naturally less scary than infinite Squirrels. I mean, Griseltard only has 7 power!

Ya infinite tapped squirrels are way more busted than a grisselbrand

[Claymore]

The recent Pro Tour and GP makes me want to try and sleeve up Modern again. But then I look at 9-32 of the GP and it's like 50% Tron and Burn decks.

Jace and BBE back is pretty cool, and I think Disrupting Shoal could make a push into Modern Jace decks.

[ESG]

I lol'd. Can't have squirrel combo taking over the format. I'm glad we only have reasonable stuff like show and tell for Griselbrand

http://78.media.tumblr.com/59f31bef27ee2c098d91858c752d19ad/tumblr_n2duvqq6lG1s9rpajo1_r2_500.gif

[Ronald Deuce]

Worth pointing out that wincons were never supposed to be anything but broken, team.

And yes, so is getting 15 1/1 tokens.

[Ace/Homebrew]

That's totally unrealistic!

You'd need at least 20 Squirrels, Wonder, and an Island.

[Barook]

That's totally unrealistic!

You'd need at least 20 Squirrels, Wonder, and an Island.
Levitation also works.

Or Akroma's Memorial if you want to stay monocolor and have Cradle in play. Although in that case, it's questionable why you don't win on the spot with the divine fury of an angelic squirrel legion.

[Brainstorm Ape]

Pfft...I guess a lot of people here don't remember the Mercadian Masques ALL STAR that was Spidersilk Armor. Reach, toughness, everything you need. That's a card that could gum up casual boardstates like no other and would help our tree-rat friends eat some spaghetti with their acorns.

PS: With the Modern B&R Llist update we are officially in Yu Gi Oh territory ladies and germs. Next up, a Mana Drain unban in Legacy to gin up sales for Bubonic Masters in 2019.

[Rascalyote]

The unban has nothing to do with balancing. Modern was in a really good place right now. But since they have to sell M25 packs next month, they had to go and fuck it up in the quest for more money.

Maybe they would be better off if they got their shit together and printed new duals without any shitty disadvantages, considering how desperate they seem for revenue now.

yes unbanning 4 mana fair cards that shouldn't be on the ban list = destroying the format as a cash grab.

[Brainstorm Ape]

yes unbanning 4 mana fair cards that shouldn't be on the ban list = destroying the format as a cash grab.

It's concerning to see the ban list cynically managed to sell packs of a new product as opposed to make formats more interesting or healthy.

Sure, JTMS is very unlikely to destroy Modern. I doubt it will even put more than a dozen copies in the next few top 8s. Some U/W or U/W/r lists will slot in two to three Jaces instead of whatever other value/engines they were running and be somewhat stronger against slower, fairer matchups as a result (i.e. a minority of the Modern metagame). But I fail to see any upside to unbanning Jace.

Blue-based control doesn't need the help. U/x/y lists have had good tournament finishes without Jace in recent times. And the addition of the Walletsculptor to the format will serve only to push out a bunch of 4-drops that are drastically weaker than Jace in Blue decks interested in the long game that had seen play up to this point. Instead of seeing random Nahiris, Gideons, Elspeth's, Mom and Pop's Thopter Shop, or Jace, Architecht of Thought, we're probably just going to see a bunch of Mindsculptors in U/x/y Control and Midrange piles because he's on a much higher power level than any of those options.

And JTMS doesn't really enable anything interesting; he's simply an incredibly powerful and flexible goodstuff card. It's no Survival, or in Modern terms Twin or Pod, where you can build a unique strategy around it.

From a format health perspective, it seems like there's little-to-no upside, some likely downsides, and the scant risk of catastrophe. But the financial side looks great for WotC. Masters 25 now has a $100 chase Mythic, legal in one of the most popular constructed formats, for people to go nuts over; Jace is now a much more exciting spoiler than he was as $40-$50 Legacy and Cube staple and that's likely to be reflected in sales.

Ain't the end of the world by any means, but, just like the mass Standard bannings, this is a slippery slope we're headed down.

[Ahab]

Lol. Jace is not good enough to be banned, so he is unbanned. I see nothing wrong with that. Shortening the banned list seems to be smart move. Also Jace and BBE are iconic and people like to cast them. Win-win. I approve this unbanning.

[Mr. Safety]

It occurred to me that its for the exact reason that the format is healthy that it's the time to take a risk with an unban. I know WOTC kind of alluded to this with their statement. If ever there was a time to take a chance it's when a format is diverse, which means the number of viable decks is likely to be its highest. The unbans removing decks from the format I think is a little hyberbolic; that's what bans do. Decks will change, new decks will emerge, some decks will get worse, some will get better. Wild Nacatl was basically unplayable before a Jace/BBE ban; now it's not a bad idea to load up on small dudes because control decks will have a clustered 4-mana slot (Cryptic, Jace, Wraths.) They have to have Wraths or Cryptic, otherwise they will get overrun. And even if they wipe, Bloodbraid into dude resets the board nicely to attack the follow-up jace.

I think the more interesting path for Bloodbraid is cascading into Stone Rain. The LD deck already has legs, if not a huge portion of the format. BBE into Blood Moon/Stone Rain/Molten Rain? This seems very good to me. I always felt that the GRx decks of the format would get a nice boost from Bloodbraid.

While some players will whine and say 'modern got ruined!' that same number, or more, will come into the format because they can port their Jaces from legacy. If ever there was a card to unban that would attract Legacy players into Modern, Jace is it.

[H]

Disgusting business practices from Wizards:


Allow people to play their cards by unbanning cards people want to play with and aren't overpowered.
Print those cards.
Make money off that.


Anyone know the Best Business Bureau's phone number off hand? This is just abhorrent. Honestly I think an FTC complaint is in order too. How can we let them get away with this? What about our well-being? Don't they understand that bad 4-drops are people too? Who will think of the children?

#ThoughtsAndPrayersForNonJace4Drops

[Ace/Homebrew]

https://asheathersworldturns.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/lovejoy-think-of-the-children-16nov131.jpg

[Ronald Deuce]

FUN? IN MODERN? WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!

Guys, in all seriousness, give it a few weeks; they'll ban BBE, the Wallet Sculptor, and 2-7 other things.

[MGB]

I, for one, am glad I bought my 4 Jaces on MTGO for a pittance and now can cash them out for 50+ tix a pop eventually.

Although if I were really smart I would have stockpiled foil and non-foil cardboard Jaces, knowing this day was coming at some point.

[H]

@ParkerLewis

People get invested in narratives and so are highly disinclined to abandon them, really no matter what. That investment doesn't have to be financial, emotional investment might even be more powerful as such. In any case, no one really wants to admit that the narrative they have constructed to explain away things might not really be a completely accurate representation of reality. But then again, that is a big part of the role narratives play for us: take something that isn't necessarily straight forward and make it so. It's far easier to understand "Wizards makes cash grab" than it is to understand the judgement call of "Unban Jace." Why?

Because a cash grab by Wizards is delightfully simply and rational. They are a business, so it is easy to see them as making only profit motivated decisions. Jace could have come off the list with EMA, for FTV20 for that matter, but he didn't. So, it wasn't purely a profit-driven move, even if almost certainly was part of the choice. Wizards makes Magic to make money, should they really be so stupid as to try not to?

Oddly enough, what Wizards just did in Modern is precisely what numerous people constantly look for them to do with Legacy. Jace was never legal in Modern, much like, say, Black Vise, Worldgorger, Earthcraft, etc. in Legacy. We all know those clarion calls. We even know how some of those worked out. And Bloodbraid? Once deemed too format constricting and diversity killing, now reinstated. Survival in Legacy sure comes to mind. Yet, we should shit on Wizards actually doing essentially what we have been calling for them to do, just not in the format we'd like them to do it in?

[Ahab]

I don't understand. The sets are not designed by a third party. The same company decided to reprint Jace and to unban him. One could even argue that in order to unban Jace, you have to reprint him, due to the price tag.
It would be concerning if they only did one of the two and not both.

[Dice_Box]

I see two viewpoints here. One side views this as insider trading. Wizards knew ahead of time X stock was going to be worth money so they moved to take advantage.

The other side sees it as helping with supply and demand.

My question is, at what point do we are players just stop bitching? This is an unregulated market. Pump and Dump happens all the time, shit spikes and people make a killing. Playing Magic less like a game and more like shares in a stock exchange. With that already established is it really fair to bitch that the only company that can effect supply (And hopefully stock price) decided to do what it could with what tools it has?

Fuck, I wish they would reprint shit more. Why is this an issue? Wizards print the game and make the game pieces, they don't control the stock exchange.

[Claymore]

They probably get into diminishing returns eventually, and when your new Standard cards are overshadowed by old card popularity and reprints then it's not a great way to show Standard/push new packs. Largely it's probably unsustainable, especially if you lose consumer confidence with each reprint.

[Vissah]

I see two viewpoints here. One side views this as insider trading. Wizards knew ahead of time X stock was going to be worth money so they moved to take advantage.

The other side sees it as helping with supply and demand.

My question is, at what point do we are players just stop bitching? This is an unregulated market. Pump and Dump happens all the time, shit spikes and people make a killing. Playing Magic less like a game and more like shares in a stock exchange. With that already established is it really fair to bitch that the only company that can effect supply (And hopefully stock price) decided to do what it could with what tools it has?

Fuck, I wish they would reprint shit more. Why is this an issue? Wizards print the game and make the game pieces, they don't control the stock exchange.

I agree with you mate.

I just wish they would do something about that damn reserved list so we can get more people into Legacy. Who would play Modern when Legacy can be played for the same price with the same accesibility.

[Ronald Deuce]

Seriously, why is anyone complaining about the reintroduction of powerful cards to Modern? If there's a format that needs it, look no further.

There are two reasons I quit Modern: constant ad hoc bans of cards I'd want to use there, and a lack of powerful cards generally. They're solving both of those problems.

[Brainstorm Ape]

Seriously, why is anyone complaining about the reintroduction of powerful cards to Modern?

Money.

They unbanned Bloodbraid? Alright, cool. Thirty to forty bucks gets you a playset at peak hype and you're good to go. Cascade into Ancestral Vision, lament that the Boom//Bust line doesn't work under current rules, whatever tickles your fancy. Shit, you might not even need to buy into Elves; it could very likely do jack in Modern because turn 3 Karn or Affinity kills make a value 4-drop look silly.

On the other hand, Jacey Boy is gonna run you a c-note per copy when everything shakes out, and is very likely to be an integral staple in U/x decks going forward. But wait...Wizards has our back! They're printing it at Mythic in $10 packs that just so happen to release in a month! What a coincidence.

I'd feel a little more secure in calling this a decision made with the format's health in mind, not just a cheap ploy to drive up Masters 25 sales, if I dunno, JTMS was the 2018 GP promo or more accessible by some other means.

[Crimhead]

Grixis Delver has proven to be the best deck in the format right now. It is 4% higher represented than any other deck. Imagine if every Canadian, BURG, BUG Delver player just played the best Delver 75 instead of playing delver variants they liked?

What, is it so hard to imagine that the best performing deck with even across the board matchups is actually... the best deck in the format? Lmao. Czech Pile I am told is the next best performing deck and I would happily rate it as the 2nd best deck in the format.
Have you ever heard of a deck called Lands?

There is no way that it would ever be correct for everybody to play Gixis and Czech. The real spikes would attack that meta with Lands and a big belly laugh. Sure, the fair decks could pack some grave-hate. But Lands can also be tweaked to grind vs fair decks (RUG or Jund build with Boseiju main, etc).

Legacy cannot devolve into a 100% fair deck meta. The tools are there to hose that.

Also, your premises are out the window. If a deck did have a 50/50 match vs every deck in the field, it is mathematically impossible for that to be any better than an average deck. See, win-rates are collectively zero-sum in any meta. If Grixis has an average win-rates of 50%, it is not possible for every other deck to have an average win-rates bellow that (draws notwithstanding).

Furthermore, according to paper data, Czech is not the second best performing deck.
http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=72

TLDR - get a clue.



Do you really think it's so absurd that people would voluntarily choose to play fun decks over good decks in casual card games?
I'm sure this happens all the time. That doesn't mean Legacy becomes a 2-deck format if they don't!

In fact, Crisis and Czech thrive specially in the meta they play in; fun decks and all. You change that (guessing) 30% of the meta, and decks will thrive differently. Grixis and Czech are good because of the meta they play in - not because they are specially adept in mirror matches!
:laugh:



Imagine getting this worked up debating someone on the other side of the world about a children's card game. Have you never had someone disagree with you?
I'm sorry if you are getting worked up about a meta you apparently do not enjoy, but I don't know what to tell you there. Maybe take a break? Do they allow recreational marijuana on your side of the world? Here in Canada we are but a toke away from legalisation. For the most part we are a laid back bunch.
Peace.
:smile:

[PirateKing]

On the other hand, Jacey Boy is gonna run you a c-note per copy when everything shakes out, and is very likely to be an integral staple in U/x decks going forward. But wait...Wizards has our back! They're printing it at Mythic in $10 packs that just so happen to release in a month! What a coincidence.

Is it really a coincidence when it's done with intent on purpose?
The reprint of Jace in Masters 25 will provide greater availability for our player base.
That's literally from the B&R announcement.

Like I get the appeal of an imaginary shadow government conspiracy set to pull the puppet strings of the industry for nefarious purposes; but it's just not the case.
How often does a company need to remind the public that they're not a charity before they can sell a product for profit without having cries of j'accuse leveled at them?

[Dice_Box]

Have you ever heard of a deck called Lands?
No. What's it like?

[morgan_coke]

No. What's it like?

I hear it plays a lot of land cards.

[Crimhead]

No. What's it like?
It's like a meta-game policeman that prevents Legacy from becoming exclusively a format of Midrange and Tempo decks.
:tongue:

[Ronald Deuce]

Money.

Here's the thing, though: I don't like their dicking with the secondary market any more than you do, but we don't know what's going to happen to the price of "dies to Lightning Bolt" and "dies to Lightning Bolt" once those cards actually see some play in the format again. They've spiked like crazy because people aren't perfect, but I'd rather have Benjamin cards in Modern than have Modern be terrible. I've left that format twice because it's so milquetoast. I also want to reiterate: there's a good chance they'll ban both of those cards within the next year.

Of course, the flip side of that is that Preordain—a D+ card—is still banned. I'm not happy about how their decision-making process works, but I am glad they're making good cards playable again.

You're almost definitely right about the timing.


Also, your premises are out the window. If a deck did have a 50/50 match vs every deck in the field, it is mathematically impossible for that to be any better than an average deck. See, win-rates are collectively zero-sum in any meta. If Grixis has an average win-rates of 50%, it is not possible for every other deck to have an average win-rates bellow that (draws notwithstanding).

Furthermore, according to paper data, Czech is not the second best performing deck.
http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=72

TLDR - get a clue.

I like you.

[Fjaulnir]

FWIW, some of the more hated cards / cards that are being called out as potential bans, are now being under- and overrepresented in the way MTGO decklists are now being selected:


https://www.reddit.com/r/MTGLegacy/comments/7y83zk/first_week_of_new_mtgo_decklist_rules/

Data set is small, but I think this is a trend we'll keep seeing anyway, hiding even more what decks/cards are dominant.

[Barook]

FWIW, some of the more hated cards / cards that are being called out as potential bans, are now being under- and overrepresented in the way MTGO decklists are now being selected:


https://www.reddit.com/r/MTGLegacy/comments/7y83zk/first_week_of_new_mtgo_decklist_rules/

Data set is small, but I think this is a trend we'll keep seeing anyway, hiding even more what decks/cards are dominant.
Not too suprising, given that decklists need to have 20 different cards to be published to the point where people in Modern put Snow basics into their deck to get their list published. And cantrip decks look all the same, hence the bias.

[Crimhead]

Data set is small, but I think this is a trend we'll keep seeing anyway, hiding even more what decks/cards are dominant.
I wouldn't even look at online data anymore.

[Zllig]

FWIW, some of the more hated cards / cards that are being called out as potential bans, are now being under- and overrepresented in the way MTGO decklists are now being selected:


https://www.reddit.com/r/MTGLegacy/comments/7y83zk/first_week_of_new_mtgo_decklist_rules/

Data set is small, but I think this is a trend we'll keep seeing anyway, hiding even more what decks/cards are dominant.

Planeswalker (3)
3 Jace, the Mind Sculptor

Sorcery (14)
2 Call of the Herd
2 Council's Judgment
1 Decree of Justice
2 Gaea's Blessing
4 Ponder
3 Supreme Verdict

Instant (19)
4 Brainstorm
4 Counterspell
1 Cunning Wish
2 Fact or Fiction
4 Force of Will
4 Swords to Plowshares

Land (24)
2 Field of Ruin
3 Flooded Strand
1 Forest
4 Island
6 Plains
2 Tropical Island
3 Tundra
3 Windswept Heath

Other (1)
1 Aetherling
61 Cards

Sideboard (15)
3 Cyclonic Rift
3 Disenchant
3 Flusterstorm
2 Pulse of the Fields
4 Spell Pierce

What the fuck am I reading? This is incredible.

[morgan_coke]

Planeswalker (3)
3 Jace, the Mind Sculptor

Sorcery (14)
2 Call of the Herd
2 Council's Judgment
1 Decree of Justice
2 Gaea's Blessing
4 Ponder
3 Supreme Verdict

Instant (19)
4 Brainstorm
4 Counterspell
1 Cunning Wish
2 Fact or Fiction
4 Force of Will
4 Swords to Plowshares

Land (24)
2 Field of Ruin
3 Flooded Strand
1 Forest
4 Island
6 Plains
2 Tropical Island
3 Tundra
3 Windswept Heath

Other (1)
1 Aetherling
61 Cards

Sideboard (15)
3 Cyclonic Rift
3 Disenchant
3 Flusterstorm
2 Pulse of the Fields
4 Spell Pierce

What the fuck am I reading? This is incredible.

Including the fetches, that entire list on MTGO is like what, 50 tix? (well, 50 tix plus whatever the hell Jace is going for now that he's unbanned)

[ParkerLewis]

So, pure exercise because it will never happen, but this random thought crossed my mind this morning, and I was surprised it didn't seem as stupid as it felt it should. What if fetchlands were banned ?

Pros :
- Brainstorm is now a fair card at best
- DRS is far less reliable as a mana source
- The power of having access to 3 or more colors of magic will now actually come with a real cost.

Cons :
- ?

I ended up thinking this looked like something I could enjoy and support.

[Crimhead]

Cons :
- ?

The majority of the archetypes take such a hit as to likely become unplayable. Even many 2-colour drcks would either become unreliable or overly exposed to non-basic hosers (Wasteland becomes oppressive, as we can no longer fetch basics to dodge it). Meanwhile decks that can run without fetches (D&T, Eldrazi, Elves, Burn, Steel Stompy, etc) stay at the same power level (Elves takes a very small hit).

Maybe the format would be okay when the dust settled (there would be a lot of adjusting). But nuking ~70% of the meta while leaving the rest unscathed would be a catastrophic shake-up with a high risk of crushing diversity. Also the community would suffer. I think many players would outright leave when their deck gets destroyed like this.

Right now Legacy is as diverse as it has ever been (save, perhaps the wild-west days when the format was less developed). You might not like BS, DRS, or 3+ coloured decks; but that hardly warrants banning ten cards and gutting the mana-base options.

Edit:

I suspect my beloved Lands deck could survive this ban (which is, of course, the most important thing). :tongue:
I would need to ramp up on Duals and Bicycle lands. I might need to add an extra Forest or Sylvan Scrying (and Crop Rotation would be an all-star). I might have to proactively use my tutors for a Forest - especially vs Moon decks.

The big challenge would be finding prey. Greedy mana bases might be more rare (with the exception of Sol Land bases).

The format possibly would be still very healthy - and it would be fascinating to see it adapt. But I think it would be hugely risky and simultaneously not at all justified (unless we thing shake-up bans and a "hands-on" policy are good things).

[ParkerLewis]

It would be a huge shake-up, that's for sure. But I'm not traumatized by the idea. And yes, I'm a bit tired of the ubiquity of Brainstorm & DRS. Nuking the fetches felt like an interesting way to make both these cards a lot less no-brainers, and when I thought about the other consequences (making manabases a lot more sane), it just felt even more right.

Basically, there's a point where too good colorfixing is detrimental to the game (the color pie exists for a reason). The question is then only whether or not that is the case for a given available cardpool. It so happens that I do think that fetches+ABUR duals make it go over the edge, and I'd rather ban the fetches than the duals for numerous reasons (Brainstorm & DRS notably, but also because, and yes this is subjective, Force of Will and ABUR duals are to me the only cards that you just can't remove from Legacy without it not being able to be called Legacy anymore).

Note and keep in mind I was and am saying all of this quite casually (ie I'm not willing to enter a huge ten-page long debate with arguments of hundreds of line). But I'm interested if someone sees an obvious huge problem with the idea (a shake-up itself is a given but once again I don't consider it a problem. A shake-up os just that, a shake-up, and one year later it's not a subject anymore).

[Megadeus]

The format becomes unplayable simply from a price standpoint. Duals are already four hundred dollars each. Just think of what happens when you have to play 4 of each because you don't have fetches. The format would get priced out even more than it is now

[ParkerLewis]

The format becomes unplayable simply from a price standpoint. Duals are already four hundred dollars each. Just think of what happens when you have to play 4 of each because you don't have fetches. The format would get priced out even more than it is now

I thought about that, but :
- monocolor decks are unaffected
- two color decks are unaffected (they already play 4 duals), they'd just play shocklands and/or painlands instead of fetches
- 5 color decks (whatever they are) are hugely affected but (at least that's the consequence I would foresee) in a simple playability way, as in they just simply can't use duals anymore. So for me there is no price issue.
- 4 color decks are basically the same. You can play 24 duals if you want, the reliability of your manabase is still going to suck (in addition to being extremely sensitive to any form of hate). They'd have to rely on things like City of Brass which, in comparison, are free. Like 5c decks, they'd just adapt (and it couldn't be by saturating on duals) and/or disappear making the price issue moot.
- 3 color decks is where it's the most interesting, because yes, they would probably be able to take on the challenge by going the full 12 (instead of what, nine today ?) - while still end up with a shakier manabase than previously.

All in all, no, I don't think the format becomes "unplayable from a price standpoint". I think 4c and 5c decks disappear and/or use cheap rainbow lands, 3c decks do indeed cost *slightly* more, and 2 and 1 color decks are unaffected (once again from a price standpoint).

[Whitefaces]

Blood Moon would be utter misery without fetches.

[Crimhead]

Note and keep in mind I was and am saying all of this quite casually...
Absolutely!



Basically, there's a point where too good colorfixing is detrimental to the game (the color pie exists for a reason). The question is then only whether or not that is the case for a given available cardpool.

When I look at the top decks I see:

Mono-colour

Eldrazi
D&T
Mono-colour with a splash

Elves
2-colour

Turbo Depths
Sneak Show
Prowess
Miracles
Lands
2-colour with a splash

ANT
RUG Lands
Red Miracles
3-Colour with a splash

Grixis Delver
4-colour

Czech

Points to note:

Very few decks are going above 3-colours.
Most decks are below 3-colours.
5-colour decks are nonexistent.
Mono colour decks are alive and well.
3+ colour decks are easily hosed by Legacy's flagship denial deck.

So I tend to think colour fixing is good but not out of hand. I realise this is entirely subjective - different people have higher and lower tolerance for the density of 3+ colour decks.
:smile:

[Megadeus]

I think most of us that don't like greedy 3 color+ decks are fine with it as long as it has actual down sides. The problem is Deathrite has made it so there is very minimal downsides to it and it is incredibly hard for it to be punished in any way that matters

[Lord Seth]

Blood Moon would be utter misery without fetches.It makes Blood Moon more powerful, but also makes it way harder to actually run it in a deck.

[MorphBerlin]

It makes Blood Moon more powerful, but also makes it way harder to actually run it in a deck.

Yeah how is ono-R stompy (the premier Moon deck) going to support it without duals?:eyebrow:

Banning fetches is just such an absurdly stupid Idea. Thanks for crimehead to taking the time and pointing out why.

Also I am agreeing that I don't see a problem with legacys mana fixing. I mean playing a deck like chezch pile is defenitly not free regarding the mana base because you will lose countless games to 2 wastelands, moon, etc. It's just that the benefit is better in the current meta but it is still a trade of.

The one thing that is kind of useless is playing a 2 color fair deck, because the splash of the 3rd color is basically free.

[Lemnear]

If you ask me, they could ban fetches and neuter all the cantrip, DRS & 3-4 color deck nonsense and can unban all the cards like SDT, Dig Through Time, Treasure Cruise & Co who all just had their powerlevel BECAUSE of fetches.

Pricetag of Legacy & Bloodmoon seem like strawmen given that Legacy is already ridiculously priced to the point that barely new players enter the format and Bloodmoon can't even get a hold on the most greedy decks atm, so i doubt it will be a threat to hypothetical 2 color decks in a post-ban world

[non-inflammable]

Duals are already four hundred dollars each.

Seeing what duals actually sold for is easy. In the last few months on ebay, HP Plateau sold for $40, HP U-Sea sold for $150 and HP Bayou sold for $90.
My 2 fulminator mages cost me $60 for modern and they were just for SB. Modern players are already spending ^this^ amount...

If anything could make brainstorm a "fair" card blue duals would drop in price.

[Matsu]

If the fetchlands are gone I expect more people will play City of Brass/Mana confluence and traverse the ulvenwald will become a card in green decks.

The price of duals is increasing because they are perfect for fetching. If painlands will have a forest/mountain tag they will see play as a budget replacement. Some people in my area cannot afford Duals and they still have "some" success with shocklands.

Below you can see one of the best decks in the Type 1 without the fetchlands.
People were playing magic back in the days and it was not that bad. I enjoyed it more than today where i have to constantly shuffle and face an army of TNN. I dont say I want Mana Drain in the format. This is just a presentation.


"Keeper"
5 Moxen
1 Black Lotus
1 Sol Ring
1 Strip Mine
3 Wasteland
1 Library of Alexandria
4 City of Brass
1 Undiscovered Paradise
3 Tundra
4 Volcanic Island
4 Underground Sea

4 Mana Drain
4 Force of Will
1 Misdirection
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Stroke of Genius
1 Braingeyser
1 Fact or Fiction
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Merchant Scroll
1 Time Walk
2 Morphling

1 The Abyss
1 Mind Twist
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Diabolic Edict
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor

1 Balance
1 Swords to Plowshares
1 Dismantling Blow

1 Gorilla Shaman
1 Fire/Ice

1 Regrowth
1 Sylvan Library

1 Zuran Orb

Sideboard:
4 Red Elemental Blast
2 Powder Keg
2 Circle of Protection: Red
1 Swords to Plowshares
1 Aura Fracture

[Vissah]

I`m happy I love playing Dredge. No fetching, no shuffling, no expensive Duals.

What I see and hear around me is that a lot of people want to get into Legacy but the price is holding them off, especially the price of Duals.
When is Wizards going to adress the Reserve List and do something about it? Probably never and that would be a shame specially now when they are giving Legacy more spotlight the coming year.
I just started playing Legacy about 4 months ago and I`m loving it. I came over from Modern Dredge so that is why I went for LED Dredge because I just love the mechanic.

[Matsu]

Me and my wife have a small company and we know from running it a couple of years if the costumer is happy->you are happy->they will attract more customers-> more money ->etc.

Fetchlands are powerful because for 1Life you can fetch any colour which is a small cost. Compare it to City of Brass 1life for every use, Rishadan port kills you in 20 turns and it doesn’t filter your library.

At the end we all want a diverse fun format with new people playing it every year.

They should have a simple conversation in WotC.
A: We need more people to play legacy to sell more products and make more money.
B: We cannot bring more people to this format, because the price of cards X/Y/Z is too high.
A: Reprint those cards to oblivion so they buy our product and play the fucking game.
B: We cannot do that Sir, because X/Y/Z are on the reserve list.
A: Remove the reserve list.
B: Impossible Sir.
A: Fuck, do we have a substitute for those cards?
B: Yes Sir, we produced a huge amount of them, they are called X1/Y1/Z1 etc….
A: Good, lets ban X/Y/Z.
B: Impossible sir, X/Y/Z are the driving force of the format. If we ban them we will have a similar format to Modern.
A: Shit, we have to be clever. How we can reduce the amount of X/Y/Z in a deck?
B: We have to ban 20 to 30 cards, Sir.
A: Will it work?
B: Not enough data sir.
A: Fuck it, take 10 people from the basement, the clever one and produce a forecast how this will affect the format. And remember keep the format diverse we don’t want a second 2 deck format like vintage and standard. If the deck will be competitive without X/Y/Z, ban those 20/30 cards and reprint X1/Y1/Z1 to oblivion, but only once a year, lets dry them slowly. They will buy all that crap and be happy to leave us their cash. Let them know we try to do something good for them. After we will sell all our stuff and the dust will settles we will ban/unban more to adjust the meta.
B: But sir, what about the collectors, those who have X/Y/Z and those pussies who will moan about bans.
A: I don’t give a shit about them. They have already spent their money on this piece of coloured paper. I want new people, youngsters, fresh meat who will spend their savings/pocket money.
B: That is brilliant sir.
A: That is why I am the boss.
B: Exactly Sir.
A: Go and do your job, I want results.
B: Yes Sir!

Replace X/Y/Z with any card you want. If they cannot make money, because no one will buy reprints (iconic masters), they will reprint the reserve list. This is just a question of time, especially now when you can buy their product in the supermarket.

[MorphBerlin]

If you ask me, they could ban fetches and neuter all the cantrip, DRS & 3-4 color deck nonsense and can unban all the cards like SDT, Dig Through Time, Treasure Cruise & Co who all just had their powerlevel BECAUSE of fetches.

Pricetag of Legacy & Bloodmoon seem like strawmen given that Legacy is already ridiculously priced to the point that barely new players enter the format and Bloodmoon can't even get a hold on the most greedy decks atm, so i doubt it will be a threat to hypothetical 2 color decks in a post-ban world

To accomplish what exactly other than following the idea f some random internet dude whose investment into the format ia close to 0 because he actually doesn't even really play the format, right? It is basically creating a new format and nobody can say if for better or worse. You can actually do that without fucking up legacy, just call it xy format and see, who wants to play that.

Also if you would think further than your nose you would recognize that the price argument is super valid, because not only are new players priced out further but actually people with a decent legacy pools have to restock in duals because all of a sudden you need 12 duals for your 3 color deck (see keeper list).

What exactly would "grabbing a hold" mean for moon.decks btw? You seem to have a weird definition for that.

[Lemnear]

Also if you would think further than your nose you would recognize that the price argument is super valid, because not only are new players priced out further but actually people with a decent legacy pools have to restock in duals because all of a sudden you need 12 duals for your 3 color deck (see keeper list).

The price argument is pure speculation based on the assumption that every deck will run three colors and 7+ duals in a post-fetch world while not getting fucked over by Wasteland/Bloodmoon/GhostQuarter/etc in the process.

I however think that wasteland & Co would punish decks with that many duals to the point that 3+ color decks would become near unplayable, rather than the norm you assume here.

[Dice_Box]

What I think would happen.

Fastlands and Filterlands become playable in Legacy and while the amount of basics that are in the format will increase, the difficulty in locating them means they will feel less impactful.

Decks like Stompy, Big Red, Lands and other Punishers win.

Decks held together with DRS, Brainstorm or Veteran Explorer lose out.

Lands, a deck with 3 fetches in it feels limited impact. The deck moves to 4 Duals and 2 Forest, it is forced to Ghost Quarter itself in the face of Bloodmoon more though as it no longer can fetch basics.

After 6 to 9 months debate on banning Loam becomes a common sight in this thread. No one mentions Brainstorm any more.

Moon, Back to Basics, Loam and Crucible become all stars.

Could be wrong, with any luck we'll never know.

[taconaut]

Another thing to consider when banning fetches is that, while brainstorm would certainly be less powerful, the impact of the secondary cantrips is greater - if you want to be playing three colors, it'd probably be Uxx, because stuff like ponder gets much stronger when a big part of winning is finding the right colors. Unless you're playing loam, like Dice is describing, cantrips would still probably be the best way to fix.

[Mr. Safety]

Another thing to consider when banning fetches is that, while brainstorm would certainly be less powerful, the impact of the secondary cantrips is greater - if you want to be playing three colors, it'd probably be Uxx, because stuff like ponder gets much stronger when a big part of winning is finding the right colors. Unless you're playing loam, like Dice is describing, cantrips would still probably be the best way to fix.

Preordain and Ponder/Portent get significantly better than Brainstorm because of scry and shuffle effects. Getting Brainstorm locked sometimes still happens even with 7-8 fetchlands and alternative shuffle effects (like Stoneforge Mystic.)

[ParkerLewis]

Decks like Stompy, Big Red, Lands and other Punishers win.

Would they ? On the short term yes, but with manabases forcibly fairer, it's not an argument I would say is obvious on the long term. Today Blood Moon is a house because the opponent's only out is its what, two basics in the remaining ~50 cards of his deck. Depending on who goes first maybe you've been able to secure one before it dropped but you're still quite cut from your colors.

Now with a deck with probably 8-9 basics (if not more if it's a two color deck), chances for your opponent to actually find two in the first ten cards are not insignificant at all.


After 6 to 9 months debate on banning Loam becomes a common sight in this thread.

:)

[Rascalyote]

The sad thing is I'd probably still try to play Knight of the Reliquary with fetches gone :( #4canopy4wasteland

[Mr. Safety]

Terramorphic Expanse and Evolving Wilds bitches.

[Ronald Deuce]

Terramorphic Expanse and Evolving Wilds bitches.

Pithing Needle and Sorcerous Spyglass would suddenly crush everything.

I both think that would be the funniest thing ever and that the format would be hideous.

[Matsu]

Pithing Needle and Sorcerous Spyglass would suddenly crush everything.

I both think that would be the funniest thing ever and that the format would be hideous.

Why it will be hideous?
Focusing on Terramorphic Expanse and Evolving Wild is the wrong way to go. I will never include those cards in my deck.

People always forget the slow fetchlands from Mirage:

Flood Plain
Bad River
Rocky Tar Pit
Mountain Valley
Grasslands

This will reduce the speed of decks using Brainstorm, turn 2 TNN/Leo, Storm, etc.

Like i said in my previous post Wotc already had printed the cards. They only have to make the right decision, and push the format in a way it will be more accessible and still fun.
Fast fetchlands allow to increase the speed of decks with Blue thanks to cantrips. Fair decks that do not use blue have to tax the opponent or use discard spells.

So the Fetchland will not go, the speed will go. You will not be able to play 12 Fetchlands and 6 Duals. You will probably change to 6 fetchlands/6 duals/6 basics or gold lands so you can have fast start and filter your deck in the mid game or after controlling the board in the first two/three turns. This still will allow TNN turn 2, but it will be less frequent.
Brainstorm will become clunky, but still available. With cards like Stoneforge mistic/traverse the ulvenvald/Slow fetch/etc you will be able to sculpt your hand just at a slower rate and less effective. It will definitely increase the difficulty of the format. But this is want we want at the end.

Play the Royal format of the game.
High Skill/ High Difficulty/ High Experience/ High Reward.

[Crimhead]

Why it will be hideous?
People always forget the slow fetchlands from Mirage:

Flood Plain
Bad River
Rocky Tar Pit
Mountain Valley
Grasslands
I would love to face those cards with my Lands deck, although it might be too much like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Mr. Safety]

In two, maybe three, color decks there is always the Panorama lands as well like Bant Panorama. It enters untapped and gives you colorless, or fetches a basic tapped if you need it to. The fact that it hits 3 different land types means it's slow but effective. Same with the shard/wedge lands like Jungle Shrine and Mystic Monastery.

[Mr. Safety]

I would love to face those cards with my Lands deck, although it might be too much like shooting fish in a barrel.

Pithing Needle shows up in all sideboards for Port/Wasteland/Stage. Game 1, rough shape though. I think someone above mentioned that Lands becomes incredible in a fetchless metagame, which I agree with.

[Matsu]

In two, maybe three, color decks there is always the Panorama lands as well like Bant Panorama. It enters untapped and gives you colorless, or fetches a basic tapped if you need it to. The fact that it hits 3 different land types means it's slow but effective. Same with the shard/wedge lands like Jungle Shrine and Mystic Monastery.

Do not forget Brainstorm into Ash Barrens:wink:


Pithing Needle shows up in all sideboards for Port/Wasteland/Stage. Game 1, rough shape though. I think someone above mentioned that Lands becomes incredible in a fetchless metagame, which I agree with.

Agreed Lands might become a powerful deck.

[Lord Seth]

Yeah how is ono-R stompy (the premier Moon deck) going to support it without duals?:eyebrow:I never said it couldn't be run. I said it was a lot harder to run. Only a few decks will actually be able to run Blood Moon, mono-Red Stompy being one of them, and they're all pretty bad right now so it's not like we'd be improving the best decks.

[Ronald Deuce]

Why it will be hideous?
Focusing on Terramorphic Expanse and Evolving Wild is the wrong way to go. I will never include those cards in my deck.

People always forget the slow fetchlands from Mirage:

Flood Plain
Bad River
Rocky Tar Pit
Mountain Valley
Grasslands

So Eldrazi gets two ways to lock out half the decks in the format on the first turn (Spyglass lets people look at your hand) [EDIT: even on the draw], Wasteland suddenly gets played everywhere, and Daze is even more effective than it used to be.

Sounds precisely as bad as it did yesterday.

[two years later] The Source: "BAN WASTELAND AND PITHING NEEDLE AND SPYGLASS; THEY'RE IN 45% OF DECKS."

See where this leads?

[EDIT: Mr. Safety, you're assuming Lands wouldn't play those very cards as well; in a world like certain people have decided they want to envision, that'd actually play to Lands's favor.

Until Big Red and Oops decided to haymaker everything in their way.]

[Mr. Safety]

So Eldrazi gets two ways to lock out half the decks in the format on the first turn (Spyglass lets people look at your hand) [EDIT: even on the draw], Wasteland suddenly gets played everywhere, and Daze is even more effective than it used to be.

Sounds precisely as bad as it did yesterday.

[two years later] The Source: "BAN WASTELAND AND PITHING NEEDLE AND SPYGLASS; THEY'RE IN 45% OF DECKS."

See where this leads?

[EDIT: Mr. Safety, you're assuming Lands wouldn't play those very cards as well; in a world like certain people have decided they want to envision, that'd actually play to Lands's favor.

Until Big Red and Oops decided to haymaker everything in their way.]

Not assuming that at all...it was just a theoretical observation. Of course lands would adapt.

[mistercakes]

in this ridiculous scenario, i think it's probably overlooked that price of progress would be a staple of non-burn decks looking for some more reach. also, burn would be likely a tier 1 deck if people still chose to play these 3-4 color decks with no fetches.

[Matsu]

So Eldrazi gets two ways to lock out half the decks in the format on the first turn (Spyglass lets people look at your hand) [EDIT: even on the draw], Wasteland suddenly gets played everywhere, and Daze is even more effective than it used to be.

Sounds precisely as bad as it did yesterday.

[two years later] The Source: "BAN WASTELAND AND PITHING NEEDLE AND SPYGLASS; THEY'RE IN 45% OF DECKS."

See where this leads?

[EDIT: Mr. Safety, you're assuming Lands wouldn't play those very cards as well; in a world like certain people have decided they want to envision, that'd actually play to Lands's favor.

Until Big Red and Oops decided to haymaker everything in their way.]

I do not know your meta, but Wasteland is played everywhere at the moment. And no one is screaming ban Wasteland. According to MtgTop8 Wasteland is present in 43% of the decks, which is very close to the number you used.

Brainstorm 55%
Ponder 52%
FoW 49%
Delta 48%
Wasteland 43%
Volc 39.5%
DRS 37.5%
U-Sea 37.5%
Trop 34.5%
Rainforest 34.2%
Tarn 32.3%
...
Daze 21%

Spyglass is a great card, but I did not see and abundance of it.
If I play Eldrazi, today, I can go Ancient Tomb -> spyglass (see 2x Delta) -> name delta-> game over.
But I see a decline in Eldrazi recently. Maybe in Robots it might be a thing.
Even Chalice of the void, which is the best tax against Xerox Decks is played in 13.6% of decks.

So I do not understand your point. According to MtgTop8 Eldrazi has 6% of the metagame and Robots was played once or twice in the last two month. This is based on public data shared by WotC and other organisers.

[Lemnear]

in this ridiculous scenario, i think it's probably overlooked that price of progress would be a staple of non-burn decks looking for some more reach. also, burn would be likely a tier 1 deck if people still chose to play these 3-4 color decks with no fetches.

I guess PoP would just go in line with Bloodmoon, Magus, Ghost Quarter, Back to Basics & Co for punishing greedy manabases with a dozen duals. I don't think that pushing some punishing mechanics is a bad thing per sé. I am more concerned with the fact that greedy 4c decks seem to get away so easily in our current meta despite all the tools in the pool, thanks to DRS and the usual manafixing

[Ronald Deuce]

I am more concerned with the fact that greedy 4c decks seem to get away so easily in our current meta despite all the tools in the pool, thanks to DRS and the usual manafixing

I share your concern about this. It's a similar problem to the one we had a year ago, only this one looks worse (though it certainly plays better) because the decks are both kitchen-sink and max-value at the same time. I think there's a deeper problem that's really difficult to remedy, though. Sure, the lands and creatures (well, three of the creatures) are driving 4c decks, but the only one that really helps their color situation is Deathrite, for which I still don't think we need a ban. I'm leaving aside fetchlands for the purpose of this post, though I'm happy to discuss them further.

The major issue is that none of these decks would function without pushed creatures printed over the past six years. I've said it before and I'll say it again: when Wizards decided(!) that noncreature spells were too strong and that creatures weren't strong enough, they could've done three things:
—Print better creatures
—Stop printing such powerful spells
—Print better creatures and worse spells

They went with the third option, and it really, really shows. None of these creatures—Deathrite Shaman, Leovold, Delver, Emrakul, G-Brand, True-Name Nemesis (LOL)—would be nearly as good if comparable tools for stopping them were still hitting shelves. That would be bad for Legacy for obvious reasons, but there's also option 2: just stop printing things like Brainstorm that get everybody panty-twisted around here because they let you draw cards, but also don't print a 2-mana 6/7; that would be stupid. (Tempora mutantur sed nihil mutant.) There was never any excuse for throttling forward creatures the way they did, and all the problems people have with a lack of format diversity and deckbuilding innovation go straight back to that. It's all value, all the time if you want to win. As an aside, that's what happens when you complain about control decks. I'm guilty, too.


I do not know your meta, but Wasteland is played everywhere at the moment. And no one is screaming ban Wasteland. According to MtgTop8 Wasteland is present in 43% of the decks, which is very close to the number you used. . . . Spyglass is a great card, but I did not see and abundance of it. If I play Eldrazi, today, I can go Ancient Tomb -> spyglass (see 2x Delta) -> name delta-> game over. . . . So I do not understand your point.

First of all, we're talking about where the meta would go, not where the meta is right now, so if you won't work with that, there's nothing to discuss.

Wasteland gets significantly stronger when you have to wait a turn to use your Mirage-block fetchlands. The fact that they take a turn to use makes Spyglass significantly better because not only can you—on the draw!—play Spyglass, look at the opponent's hand, and name the Mirage fetch that hurts the opponent the most based on their T1 land drop and the contents of their hand, you can do that on the first turn. So yes, Eldrazi gets a HUGE boost against anything that's not monocolored. Or you can Wasteland the opponent before they can activate their fetch. And if the opponent sticks with Evolving Wilds/Terramorphic Expanse, it doesn't help them much because they can only find basics, and they throw all their T1 plays as a matter of course. I'm fine with more people's playing basics, but I'm absolutely not fine with losing any number of decks that couldn't exist in any other format because the fixing sucks.

[Matsu]

I share...


Agree with everything you said^+1

I believe it is possible to turn Legacy into a no fetch format, unless WotC starts to hit those "iconic"creatures with the BanHammer.
Which might upset more people then we think.

[PirateKing]

They're getting a little better at printing spells. Fatal Push is well received. Kolaghan's Command doeth all things well.

It's just the logical extension that if it's worth playing once, then it's worth playing twice, so let's throw some Snapcasters in there. But then we're stretching our colors a bit aren't we? Nah just toss in some DRS and we'll be fine. Goodstuff! This is just the natural evolution of having the best at everything.

[Lemnear]

Wizards decided(!) that noncreature spells were too strong and that creatures weren't strong enough, they could've done three things:
—Print better creatures
—Stop printing such powerful spells
—Print better creatures and worse spells

They went with the third option, and it really, really shows. None of these creatures—Deathrite Shaman, Leovold, Delver, Emrakul, G-Brand, True-Name Nemesis (LOL)—would be nearly as good if comparable tools for stopping them were still hitting shelves.

I think, that hinting at the fact, that a 1-mana "Planeswalker" is fine to be printed but 2-mana counterspells are "too good" (topic: Mana Leak) would have been sufficient as example to show that there is a massive misbalance between "threats" & "answers" in modern set design.

If removal & counters are more expensive than the cards removed, they are getting pointless and people rather "trump" enemy threats with even bigger ones. It's the natural development we have witnessed during the times of Cancel & Murder.

The development of creatures compared to other card types is easiest to see in Vintage, a format which had only a few viable creatures like 11 years ago and now looks like a whole different format.

But don't let me derail the discussion here :)

[Crimhead]

I think, that hinting at the fact, that a 1-mana "Planeswalker" is fine to be printed but 2-mana counterspells are "too good" (topic: Mana Leak) would have been sufficient as example to show that there is a massive misbalance between "threats" & "answers" in modern set design.

I agree with what you are saying, except DRS is a poor example. They were willing to print it because it's a mediocre card in Standard. Even still, it was banned in Modern, and probably considered a mistake.

[Lemnear]

I agree with what you are saying, except DRS is a poor example. They were willing to print it because it's a mediocre card in Standard. Even still, it was banned in Modern, and probably considered a mistake.

Guess you are right. Maybe should have picked tarmogoyf vs Cancel

[Lord Seth]

In fairness, the recent Fatal Push is one of the best removal spells of all time.

[ParkerLewis]

First of all, we're talking about where the meta would go, not where the meta is right now

100% right


Wasteland gets significantly stronger when you have to wait a turn to use your Mirage-block fetchlands. The fact that they take a turn to use makes Spyglass significantly better because not only can you—on the draw!—play Spyglass, look at the opponent's hand, and name the Mirage fetch that hurts the opponent the most based on their T1 land drop and the contents of their hand, you can do that on the first turn. So yes, Eldrazi gets a HUGE boost against anything that's not monocolored. Or you can Wasteland the opponent before they can activate their fetch. And if the opponent sticks with Evolving Wilds/Terramorphic Expanse, it doesn't help them much because they can only find basics, and they throw all their T1 plays as a matter of course.

You're exactly right, and I agree that just means the format would adapt.


I'm fine with more people's playing basics, but I'm absolutely not fine with losing any number of decks that couldn't exist in any other format because the fixing sucks.

I think the difference is one of perception. No fetches would still mean people having access to :
- ABUR Duals
- Shocklands
- Painlands
- Filter lands
- the ones that enter tapped if you do/don't control the corresponding land type (note they don't require a basic land, so duals and shocks tick the box)
- City of Brass
- 3-color taplands
- TE & EW
- ... and I'm probably forgetting some

In such a format, reliably getting 4+ colors is still quite achievable - you just can't get it without a noticeable drawback, a balancing mechanic that is at the very basic foundation of the game. Note you have an abundant number of tools/options on how you elect to pay this bill (being more exposed to non-basic hate, and/or a tempo loss, and/or additional life payment, and/or...).

So, I don't think it would be fair to say that removing the fetches from the format would make the fixing "suck". Far, far from it. I think, at the absolute worst, it would make the available fixing fair (and I do mean at the absolute worst).

[Erdvermampfa]

The fact that Wizards has dedicated the introduction of fetchlands an own spot in their recent timeline of magic due to the upcoming M25 set imo suggests that they are well aware that these lands have had a huge impact on the way the game works, especially with respect to the validity of color borders and the color pie and that they have probably considered removing them at some point.

[Ronald Deuce]

I think the difference is one of perception. No fetches would still mean people having access to :
- ABUR Duals
- Shocklands
- Painlands
- Filter lands
- the ones that enter tapped if you do/don't control the corresponding land type (note they don't require a basic land, so duals and shocks tick the box)
- City of Brass
- 3-color taplands
- TE & EW
- ... and I'm probably forgetting some

In such a format, reliably getting 4+ colors is still quite achievable - you just can't get it without a noticeable drawback, a balancing mechanic that is at the very basic foundation of the game. Note you have an abundant number of tools/options on how you elect to pay this bill (being more exposed to non-basic hate, and/or a tempo loss, and/or additional life payment, and/or...).

So, I don't think it would be fair to say that removing the fetches from the format would make the fixing "suck". Far, far from it. I think, at the absolute worst, it would make the available fixing fair (and I do mean at the absolute worst).

You make a good point about how color was intended as a means of balancing mechanics by splitting them up. I also agree that there's no shortage of options to keep multicolored decks viable, but I feel like people are more likely to gravitate toward running more dual lands than they are to play stuff that comes into play tapped. My main worry is that this would price people (like me) out of the format and would give certain tempo builds even greater effectiveness in the absence of easy fixing for other archetypes.

Also, though the format would evolve, I think this would be a pretty fundamental change that would have enormous repercussions all around, not just for 4–5c Chock Full'o'Duals builds. I'm fine with changes, but I like my decks, and I think some of them would become unrecognizable or positively unplayable if such a change were to happen. Of course, on the flipside, I could still play Burn, Dredge, Charbelcher, and Poops without any detrimental effect; would a rise in those decks be good for the format, though?


The fact that Wizards has dedicated the introduction of fetchlands an own spot in their recent timeline of magic due to the upcoming M25 set imo suggests that they are well aware that these lands have had a huge impact on the way the game works, especially with respect to the validity of color borders and the color pie and that they have probably considered removing them at some point.

I think you're probably right, but the fact that they keep printing them indicates that they don't want them gone. Of course, Invocation Counterbalance was pretty indicative of poor planning (as was Invocation Blood Sun—er, Moon), but knocking fetches right after printing them would be a slap in the face of a whole lot of players across formats.

This doesn't have any bearing on the argument, but how weird would it be for Modern to have better fixing than Legacy?

[Dice_Box]

Maro has said that if "Frontier" ever became a sanctioned format it would not have Fetches in it. More or less says it all imo.

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/155508760328/re-frontier-do-you-personally-like-the-idea-of-a

[Kanti]

100% right



You're exactly right, and I agree that just means the format would adapt.



I think the difference is one of perception. No fetches would still mean people having access to :
- ABUR Duals
- Shocklands
- Painlands
- Filter lands
- the ones that enter tapped if you do/don't control the corresponding land type (note they don't require a basic land, so duals and shocks tick the box)
- City of Brass
- 3-color taplands
- TE & EW
- ... and I'm probably forgetting some

In such a format, reliably getting 4+ colors is still quite achievable - you just can't get it without a noticeable drawback, a balancing mechanic that is at the very basic foundation of the game. Note you have an abundant number of tools/options on how you elect to pay this bill (being more exposed to non-basic hate, and/or a tempo loss, and/or additional life payment, and/or...).

So, I don't think it would be fair to say that removing the fetches from the format would make the fixing "suck". Far, far from it. I think, at the absolute worst, it would make the available fixing fair (and I do mean at the absolute worst).

We get it, but none of us want to play without our fetches man. You will not win anyone over, no matter how much you make sense, I don't agree with that trash! Good points, but no way, Jose. How bout banning duals? Would force you to fetch shocklands. That could maybe push aggressive strategies over the edge, the extra 2-6 life lost a game by multicolored decks, to the point that we see an actual shake up: aggros return.

[ParkerLewis]

My main worry is that this would price people (like me) out of the format and would give certain tempo builds even greater effectiveness in the absence of easy fixing for other archetypes.

Also, though the format would evolve, I think this would be a pretty fundamental change that would have enormous repercussions all around, not just for 4–5c Chock Full'o'Duals builds. I'm fine with changes, but I like my decks, and I think some of them would become unrecognizable or positively unplayable if such a change were to happen. Of course, on the flipside, I could still play Burn, Dredge, Charbelcher, and Poops without any detrimental effect; would a rise in those decks be good for the format, though?

This was mentioned from the start, but I'm not sure anyone would get really priced out of the format. 4c/5c just can't be built by only piling up on Duals - you're forced to run rainbow lands like City of Brass which are basically free (and accept folding up no questions asked to any Moon effect). Basically, they'd probably be playing a few more duals than today (something like 12), but a typical Czech Pile list will run ~9 today, so the difference is not that high. Additionally, it would so fold to Wasteland and Blood Moon that it either would be a moot point or they'd find another more resilient way to adapt, probably accepting some tempo loss (eg playing TE/EW or the slow fetches, where in both cases "more duals" wouldn't be a real solution).

2c decks are almost unaffected from the change (and 1c obviously don't care), so I feel only 3c decks would be "at risk" of seeing their optimal manabase turning into running 2-3 more duals than today while still be able to survive as-is. On the other hand, they'd be playing 6-8 fetches less, so the actual price difference is probably more in the ~1.5 dual range. It's not nothing, but it's not a different world. That's also supposing people don't turn to other solutions for their manabases (eg maybe green decks run a 5-6 mix of BoP/NH instead of 4 DRS - or don't at all, don't know).

[Lord Seth]

Maro has said that if "Frontier" ever became a sanctioned format it would not have Fetches in it. More or less says it all imo.

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/155508760328/re-frontier-do-you-personally-like-the-idea-of-aThat's not what he said. He says that "I wouldn’t have included Khans block because I don’t think you want fetches in the format" i.e. that it is his own personal opinion and not necessarily that of WOTC. I don't think he's even particularly involved with the development side of things, which I believe would be the ones tasked with making such a format.

Although, the idea of starting later than Khans of Tarkir is a bit amusing because that would mean (right now) you'd have it be composed of nothing other than really unpopular Standard formats.

[kinda]

I would like to see brainstorm banned since the 18000 card legacy format is now 3 overarching archetypes:

1) Brainstorm plus ponder and/or fow decks. This is literally the majority of the format per mtgtop8.

2) Prison decks to hate out the above (chalice and thalia decks plus lands)

3) Glass cannon combo (br reanimator/elves/dredge etc.)

Now I get the argument that there are many different decks within the three including the brainstom decks...but I think the format could be much more diverse without it. After the brainstorm shell you are really just picking your win cons and favorite protection spells.

[now]

I think the format could be much more diverse without [Brainstorm].

Would you please elaborate? What would we be seeing in their stead? It seems a bit too easy to say “all these decks that use the best cards are keeping all the other decks out” without elaborating on what we’re missing out on and quantifying just how many more viable decks there’d actually be.

And why is even more diversity desirable? Isn’t the current environment overall rather healthy, with decent sideboard plans for most decks against most other decks?

[mistercakes]

Would also like to better understand what the diversity would be.

The blue almost needs to exist to keep the unfair decks in check.

[Erdvermampfa]

Would also like to better understand what the diversity would be.

The blue almost needs to exist to keep the unfair decks in check.

No one is arguing for a ban of FoW, Daze, Pierce or whatever. The point is that banning brainstorm could be a first step to create parity between the colors in terms of card selection and randomness management. As long as BS is legal decks that can't play it will always fight an uphill battle and if you actually want to win at games it will always be silly to play without it. If BS was banned, blue would still have an advantage in this regard because there are so many other cantrips that could replace it so you blue fanboys could still be happy.

[kinda]

Would you please elaborate? What would we be seeing in their stead? It seems a bit too easy to say “all these decks that use the best cards are keeping all the other decks out” without elaborating on what we’re missing out on and quantifying just how many more viable decks there’d actually be.

And why is even more diversity desirable? Isn’t the current environment overall rather healthy, with decent sideboard plans for most decks against most other decks?

My guess is banning it would pretty much create a whole new format. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic? I don't know what would be good...but I'm very curious. Side note, I love legacy just can't shake the feeling that we are missing out.

[mistercakes]

no reason to get personal here. i haven't competitively used brainstorm since around 2010-2012, and that was with doomsday. i've pushed quite a few decks that have no brainstorm/ponder.

anyway -

http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=39

if you take a look at the breakdown on the left, it's pretty diverse already.

what cards do you want from the other colors that are not being played but would get played if brainstorm were banned? what other decks are you looking to play?

the best cards of each color are roughly already being played. sometimes if you want to have consistency outside of blue, you need to find synergies. is that fair? maybe not, but the brainstorm decks also can then get preyed upon by chalice and taxing decks.

the argument really isn't brainstorm, there are enough cantrips in blue so that every deck that wants to xerox to death will still be able to. at this point the game is getting so complex that the only way to stop this kind of strategy is hate against it.

thalia, chalice, thorn, eidolon are all great examples of ways to beat this kind of strategy. this is also why aether vial, blood moon, wasteland, and to a lesser extent port have a strong effect on decks that try to maximize efficiency.

you have to choose what kind of strategy you want to play. if you want to get around the blue, then you'll have to approach the game differently. it can be done, and sometimes sacrificing a little consistency can be well worth it.

just because you may be facing a brainstorm deck doesn't mean that you're an underdog. there's such a range of those decks that you can be a heavy favorite in some and a huge dog in others.

i'm not sure what you're trying to get out of it.

(just a quick edit, i've been playing competitively since tempest came out and i've seen the huge range in decks from old t2, 1.5, 1x and the current formats as well. i'm not really sure what people are expecting will develop if things are banned to reduce consistency).

[non-inflammable]

the argument really isn't brainstorm

This entire dumpster fire of a thread is about BS and why it should be banned.

[Crimhead]

This entire dumpster fire of a thread is about BS and why it should be banned.
Not a chance.

Brainstorm could be banned tomorrow, and in no time at all people would be bitching about DRS, CotV, S&T, Ponder, or whatever else rubs them the wrong way.

What this thread is 90% "about" is ranting and whining that Legacy isn't everything some of us want it to be.

[Ronald Deuce]

Would you please elaborate?

He means that Phyrexian Chalice of the Trinisphere of Resistance would be marginally close to viable, and yet it would still lose to Poops, All Spells. And that would be great until he decided it wasn't.

Can't we just be happy that Value.dec is keeping hideous(ly awesome) stuff in check, yet it still has predators? I'm not happy about certain cards' format penetration, but cascading bans are the thing that makes Modern terrible, and I don't want to see that happen here.

Still seems that people want Their Kind of Magic not only to be the best kind to play in Legacy, but the only one.

[Kyle]

We really need a reset of the poll up top.

[H]

We really need a reset of the poll up top.

No, I think we need a reminder that once-upon-a-time, 23.96% of voters felt that Tarmogoyf was the most bannable card in Legacy. And that, according to the voters, Tarmogyf was the second most bannable card in Legacy.

It's an important historical document, especially in the ban-Deathrite climate we are in now.

[Mr Miagi]

I find it interesting that Standstill was also under consideration :laugh:

[Erdvermampfa]

No, I think we need a reminder that once-upon-a-time, 23.96% of voters felt that Tarmogoyf was the most bannable card in Legacy. And that, according to the voters, Tarmogyf was the second most bannable card in Legacy.

It's an important historical document, especially in the ban-Deathrite climate we are in now.


It's understandable since Tarmogoyf used to do exactly what cards like Deathrite do know, i.e. they completely invalidate certain cards and strategies that were popular and playable before which results in an even narrower space for innovative approaches. Of course Deathrite is on a whole other level of Tarmogoyf but the analogy imo holds some truth in it.

[H]

I find it interesting that Standstill was also under consideration :laugh:

I know, shit, Goblin Lackey was still getting votes too. Goblin. Lackey.

B&R discussion is most probably better renamed: "What-Did-I-Lose-To-Last-Week-And-Why-Is-It-Bad-For-The-Format Discussion."


It's understandable since Tarmogoyf used to do exactly what cards like Deathrite do know, i.e. they completely invalidate certain cards and strategies that were popular and playable before which results in an even narrower space for innovative approaches. Of course Deathrite is on a whole other level of Tarmogoyf but the analogy imo holds some truth in it.

OK and so do numerous other cards and mechanics, should we ban all of those? Storm for example. If the qualification of "just really good" is the criterion for banning, what would we have left in Legacy when we are done?

The point of my likening the two situations, is that as Tarmogoyf was once considered too ubiquitous, so too will the day will come where we laugh at the idea of banning something like Deathrite.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Tarmogoyf was once considered too ubiquitous.
It was also considered to be the best blue creature. Hah! :tongue:

[H]

It was also considered to be the best blue creature. Hah! :tongue:

https://i.imgur.com/TKMizJ2.jpg?1

And I do too.

[Jesture]

No, I think we need a reminder that once-upon-a-time, 23.96% of voters felt that Tarmogoyf was the most bannable card in Legacy. And that, according to the voters, Tarmogyf was the second most bannable card in Legacy.

It's an important historical document, especially in the ban-Deathrite climate we are in now.

I mean, without proper historical context, 23.96% of the voter base choosing Tarmogoyf as the most bannable card in legacy doesn't actually mean anything. That's like saying the Land Tax ban in 1996 was unwarranted just because Land tax is completely fine in today's meta. It's possible that the card was just oppressive at the time of the poll and has simply fallen by the wayside with the MtG power creep that has taken place since the poll was held. Similarly, I'm sure the people who wanted top banned in 2016 wanted it banned for different reasons than those who wanted it banned in 2009.

Why does an old poll preclude the possibility of a new poll? It's been almost 9 years since those numbers were recorded and the game has changed in countless ways since then. If the main interest is in preserving a piece of history as some sort of lesson, then why not just lock/sticky this thread and start a new poll with more up to date choices?

[Ace/Homebrew]

I'm sure the people who wanted top banned in 2016 wanted it banned for different reasons than those who wanted it banned in 2009.
I get your point, but am pretty sure you're wrong here. People wanted Top banned then because of it's interaction with Counterbalance and the amount of time it increased games. Wasn't that the reasoning for its recent ban?

The real reason the poll should not be reset is because internet polls are pointless and uninformative.

[H]

I mean, without proper historical context, 23.96% of the voter base choosing Tarmogoyf as the most bannable card in legacy doesn't actually mean anything. That's like saying the Land Tax ban in 1996 was unwarranted just because Land tax is completely fine in today's meta. It's possible that the card was just oppressive at the time of the poll and has simply fallen by the wayside with the MtG power creep that has taken place since the poll was held. Similarly, I'm sure the people who wanted top banned in 2016 wanted it banned for different reasons than those who wanted it banned in 2009.

This whole thread doesn't mean anything though. We aren't the ones who determined banned list policy. My point in illustrating the (seeming) parallel is that historically there is almost always a card that is highly ubiquitous card (or cards) that seem to be better than others, leading to a higher presence in the metagame. This really does not mean they are over-powered, it just means that the meta, as currently constructed, has identified a prevalent set of cards that offer a (seeming) maximal power-level. The (plausible) historical lesson of not banning Tarmogoyf is that, one, the meta will change, two, seemingly over-powered or oppressive things will be superseded, and three, that Wizard's criterion for banning things is not ubiquity (this lesson also applies to Brainstorm, et al).


Why does an old poll preclude the possibility of a new poll? It's been almost 9 years since those numbers were recorded and the game has changed in countless ways since then. If the main interest is in preserving a piece of history as some sort of lesson, then why not just lock/sticky this thread and start a new poll with more up to date choices?

I'd be down for archiving this and making a new one, not obliterating the historical record. But I agree with Ace, in reality.

[Jesture]

I get your point, but am pretty sure you're wrong here. People wanted Top banned then because of it's interaction with Counterbalance and the amount of time it increased games. Wasn't that the reasoning for its recent ban?

That's fair. I started playing Legacy in 2014 so I can't say too much about the history of the format.


The real reason the poll should not be reset is because internet polls are pointless and uninformative.

This I disagree with. I know you weren't the one who made this point, but it seems sort of baseless to assume that internet polls have no value whatsoever when some people want to leave them up as a lesson and others want a more current reflection of the opinions of The Source's members.

That said, I'll concede that polls are pretty a unreliable form of collecting data, and that its ultimately up to us as viewers to take the information presented with a grain of salt.


This whole thread doesn't mean anything though. We aren't the ones who determined banned list policy. My point in illustrating the (seeming) parallel is that historically there is almost always a card that is highly ubiquitous card (or cards) that seem to be better than others, leading to a higher presence in the metagame. This really does not mean they are over-powered, it just means that the meta, as currently constructed, has identified a prevalent set of cards that offer a (seeming) maximal power-level. The (plausible) historical lesson of not banning Tarmogoyf is that the meta will change, is one, seemingly over-powered or oppressive things will be superseded, two, that Wizard's criterion for banning things is not ubiquity (this lesson also applies to Brainstorm, et al).

Cool, I can get behind that. I'm wary of the power creep printings associated with meta corrections (Tarmogoyf was neutered by a 1 mana 7cmc 5/5 and a subsequent printing of the most efficient 1 cmc black removal spell in history), but you're right to say that these problems do sometimes correct themselves without outside B&R interference.

[Lemnear]

This whole thread doesn't mean anything though. We aren't the ones who determined banned list policy.

Indeed. The only one who did was the genius placing the "BAN SDT" sign on WOTCs parking lot

[Claymore]

Clearly need a BAN DRS sign now. Odds are that's the only way they'll even acknowledge Legacy.

[H]

Cool, I can get behind that. I'm wary of the power creep printings associated with meta corrections (Tarmogoyf was neutered by a 1 mana 7cmc 5/5 and a subsequent printing of the most efficient 1 cmc black removal spell in history), but you're right to say that these problems do sometimes correct themselves without outside B&R interference.

And that is (to me) literally the best possible way for it to all shake out. My personal opinion is that Brainstorm, Force of Will, Ponder, Deathrite Shaman, fetches, Dual lands, Wasteland etc., are actually the "correct" power level for Legacy, the "issue" is that there are simply not that many cards that are "as good." This really doesn't mean we should ban all of them. It means we should try (i.e. hope) to get new cards printed that can offer up competition to them.

I mean, the idea that we should just bad good cards to allow inferior cards to see play gets absurd after a while. Should we ban Underground Sea because it means that Creeping Tar Pit and Jwar Isle Refuge are not good enough? Aren't we playing Legacy to get access to these high powered cards?

So then what is the correct line to draw when banning cards to allow other cards "into the format?" Should we keep going until Savannah Lion is good again? It's like some kind of reverse Relegation, where if you get too good, you need to be removed. Note that Wizards most certainly does not share the collective impression that good equals oppressive, see the years of discussion (and inaction) on SDT/Miracles pre-ban.


Indeed. The only one who did was the genius placing the "BAN SDT" sign on WOTCs parking lot

You know what needs to be done then... :cool:

[Mr. Safety]

I think the recent unbanning of Jace/Bloodbraid in Modern might be an indication that WotC is willing to take on a little more risk as far as power level. If that is the case the trend could become unbannings rather than more bannings. I could also see them 'fixing' some cards on the ban list to get the effect, albeit less broken, back into the game.

Example:

Mental Stub your Toe, U, counter target spell with converted mana cost 1

Survival of the Dad-Bod, 1G, G discard a creature card: search your library for a creature card, reveal it and put it into your hand. You may do this only as a sorcery and only once a turn. Shuffle your library.

With the whole sentiment surrounding Masters 25, there are a lot of people that are talking about the 'good old days' of magic, whether they were in fact good or not. The community wants pushed cards, and allowing other pushed cards to fight them.

One decision does not a trend make, but it was encouraging to see them try out some unbannings with Jace/BBE.

BTW, does anyone know why SotF is a $60 card currently? I bought one for $10 about 2 years ago.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Prolly EDH... filthy casuals

[H]

BTW, does anyone know why SotF is a $60 card currently? I bought one for $10 about 2 years ago.

Sounds more like you got a great deal. I had my eye on them for a number of years, to round out my collection, starting in about 2013 or so. I never saw them that low. I felt like they were overpriced at $30 but of course I eventually caved and bought them near $40.

This graph (https://www.mtgstocks.com/prints/9350) shows the price history and suppoorts the idea that $10 was just a superior deal, not the usual price two years ago. I think the main reasons for the spikes though are unban specualtion, reserved list speculation, filthy casuals, mostly in that order...

[kinda]

If you did a top 20 of non power/ante cards using both legal and banned cards I'm curious where cards like Drs would rank. Drs is clearly worse than oath...but also clearly more format defining than mind twist would be.

[Mr. Safety]

Sounds more like you got a great deal. I had my eye on them for a number of years, to round out my collection, starting in about 2013 or so. I never saw them that low. I felt like they were overpriced at $30 but of course I eventually caved and bought them near $40.

This graph (https://www.mtgstocks.com/prints/9350) shows the price history and suppoorts the idea that $10 was just a superior deal, not the usual price two years ago. I think the main reasons for the spikes though are unban specualtion, reserved list speculation, filthy casuals, mostly in that order...

I probably got my dates mixed up. It was fairly soon after it was banned, which I checked and it was 2010. I bought it maybe 6 months later. I was building a janky Survival-based EDH deck.

[H]

If you did a top 20 of non power/ante cards using both legal and banned cards I'm curious where cards like Drs would rank. Drs is clearly worse than oath...but also clearly more format defining than mind twist would be.

That's an interesting thought experiment, I might give it a run when I have a bit more time.


I probably got my dates mixed up. It was fairly soon after it was banned, which I checked and it was 2010. I bought it maybe 6 months later. I was building a janky Survival-based EDH deck.

I actually thought I owned some, post-banning, but I was playing mainly Vintage, so I never really bothered to check. Once I did, they weren't exactly cheap and since it was banned I kept putting off buying them. I still think you got a pretty good deal, because as far as I can tell, via MTGGoldfish, the price was never really bellow about $20.

[maharis]

Even excluding power specifically I think you can get pretty far before you get to DRS

Duals
Fetches
Bazaar of Baghdad
Mishra's Workshop
Brainstorm
Force of Will
Yawgmoth's Will
Tolarian Academy
Mana Crypt
Mana Vault
Time Vault
Dark Ritual
Oath of Druids
Mental Misstep
Lotus Petal
Lightning Bolt
Swords to Plowshares
Snapcaster Mage
Strip Mine
Wasteland
Gitaxian Probe
Demonic Tutor
Vampiric Tutor
Balance
Sol Ring
Dig Through Time
Treasure Cruise

That's 25ish off the top of my head. Maybe a couple are arguable, but I think 20 is no issue at all. I would put DRS in the second tier of raw power at best. Talking cards like:

DRS
Dark Confidant
Stoneforge Mystic
Tinker
Tabernacle
Life from the Loam
Young Pyromancer
Monastery Mentor
Daze
Spell Pierce
Lion's Eye Diamond
Necropotence
Entomb
Mystical Tutor
Show & Tell
Reanimate
Chalice of the Void
Trinisphere
Arcbound Ravager
Ancient Tomb (maybe this should be in the top tier)

Again all off the top of my head so don't @ me with how i messed up/missed X card/am a moron

Obviously this is about curating a format though, where some of these cards aren't legal and that pushes up the relative value/power of the cards below it. Still I think where H and I (ha) tend to agree is that the DRS issue is not about raw power, but rather the overall texture of the format, which has a number of potential avenues to solve.

[Kap'n Cook]

https://images1.mtggoldfish.com/uploads/ckeditor/pictures/1100/content_avatar-goblin-welder.jpg

[Mr. Safety]

I actually thought I owned some, post-banning, but I was playing mainly Vintage, so I never really bothered to check. Once I did, they weren't exactly cheap and since it was banned I kept putting off buying them. I still think you got a pretty good deal, because as far as I can tell, via MTGGoldfish, the price was never really bellow about $20.

Maybe I'm delusional...it was a long time ago, lol. Maybe I paid $20. It still surprises me that a card that really only sees play in EDH and Casual would be that expensive, to the point that it's $50+, but whatever. Ravnica Glimpse the Unthinkable was still at $20 before Iconic Masters and sees functionally zero competitive play.

[kinda]

@maharis I think you're right. I should have also excluded lands. A better question is probably what banned cards would be less format defining if swapped with Drs, and what non land legal cards are more format defining than Drs.

[Zombie]

Tinker doesn't belong on the second list IMO.

[Pittplayer]

I know I am in the minority when I say this. So I am not trying to convince anyone to take my side. But I feel that the legacy ban list should be as small as possible. So here is a list of cards I feel should be unbanned and banned to make legacy the format is should be.

Unban: Demonic Tutor, Earthcraft, Mana Drain, Mind Twist, Survival of the Fittest, Wheel of Fortune.

Ban: Deathrite Shaman, Show and Tell, Tendrils of Agony.

Slowing down combo decks, and removing the insane brokenness that Deathrite Shaman brings to the format, would allow more cards to be taken off the list. People will say..but but Demonic Tutor is broken! Well, it's barely better than infernal tutor or burning wish. And if you remove the insane combo cards out of the format, what will you be tutoring? High Tide? Exhume? Brain Freeze? These seem fair to me. Wheel of Fortune in a non tendrils format seems fair to me. Again, if the biggest combo decks in the format are High Tide and Reanimator, I think the control and tempo decks in the format can handle them. Whats the broken play in this format? T1 Entomb, T2 Dark Ritual Demonic Tutor Reanimate? T2 Ancient Tomb, Lotus Petal into Show and Tell is already more broken than that. And we come to Deathrite. A one mana birds of paradise, who is also graeyard hate, and is also a win conditon, is way too insane at one mana. Legacy has become a format where pretty much every fair, aggro, tempo, or midrange deck has to run Deathrite. I know everyones knee jerk reaction would be to say I'm crazy. But really think what this format would look like. Show me a deck that would be more busted than the decks already in legacy. Show me how I am wrong about how this format change would allow more diversity in the format.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Maybe I'm delusional...it was a long time ago, lol. Maybe I paid $20. It still surprises me that a card that really only sees play in EDH and Casual would be that expensive, to the point that it's $50+, but whatever. Ravnica Glimpse the Unthinkable was still at $20 before Iconic Masters and sees functionally zero competitive play.
Doubling Season

[maharis]

@maharis I think you're right. I should have also excluded lands. A better question is probably what banned cards would be less format defining if swapped with Drs, and what non land legal cards are more format defining than Drs.

Right, my apologies for being disingenuous as I know what you meant. I just wanted to show that DRS is thriving in the current legacy context rather than just being brute-force good.

i want to start with your second question. First, Brainstorm and Force are obvious, because they are played more. (Ponder too, maybe?)

But what about the stuff that you have to plan for, but may never see? Talking cards like LED, S&T, Loam, Chalice, etc. If Chalice were banned, for example, the artifact removal spell of choice would probably be Nature's Claim. But Claim is nearly unplayable because one of the key artifacts you have to remove is Chalice at 1. Does the fact that Chalice's existence forces artifact removal into the 2cmc bracket indicate more of a format definition than the fact that it's at its best because of the DRS/cantrip decks spamming so many 1 cmc cards? Put another way, is Chalice format defining because it's great, or because there are so many 1 cmc cards out there?

The fact that so many raw-power cards in Legacy (and Modern for that matter) have been banned is the reason the lists are such so contentious. When you take the obviously busted stuff out, what you're left with is stuff that's busted in a certain context. The big difference between modern and legacy is that modern at least has something resembling a stated goal: No turn 3 kills. Legacy has no such mission statement, so to speak.

Everyone knows that the last 3 banned cards died for the sins of untouchable "staples": Brainstorm and fetchlands. Changes seem to come down to how much the bear (Wizards) is poked. They tried to let us have DTT when it was nuked alongside Cruise in both Modern and Vintage, and I can see why: It's a 2 mana 2 for 1 and Hymn to Tourach has always been legal in this format. Maybe Omniscience actually broke it but it's not like there wasn't a smattering of good DTT decks across several archetypes.

A 3+ mana engine card like Survival is also questionable for being banned at this point. I feel like a lot of people remember when it was legal and think it's unsafe, but there's a deck that consistently turn 1s griselbrand with protection. Turn 3 Griselbrand is passe. Combo w/backup plan is done by Food Chain and Aluren with no ill effects. What would Survival do better?

The point to all this is to say that this argument about DRS is more about emotion and feel than any sort of objective evaluation of its power. Most ban arguments in Legacy will be because of the nature of the format.

[H]

Still I think where H and I (ha) tend to agree is that the DRS issue is not about raw power, but rather the overall texture of the format, which has a number of potential avenues to solve.

Yeah, I mean, DRS doesn't rank with some of the super powerful engines that are banned in Legacy, but DRS' ubiquity is a sign of a larger "problems." DRS solves three issues, at minimal cost: one, mana fixing; two, maindeckable Graveyard hate; three, a noncombat source of damage. Is DRS pushed? Yes. Was it a mistake? Probably yes, as printed. Is it overpowered in Legacy? No. It simply is a very versatile answer to things Legacy decks are looking do. Just like Tarmogoyf was in decks of yesteryear, when Blue decks were hungry for a beater and an easily splashable, two-mana, possibly 5/6 (on average) was just what the doctor ordered.

Is Grixis Delver really all that much more powerful than the rest of the format? No, it is (probably) a couple percentage points better than the closest deck, which, manifested over a long tournament will probably equate to an extra win. So, was it a surprise to see so many copies recently top 8? No, especially not when the deck is often touted as "the best deck in Legacy" which means that numerous people probably switch from other Delver decks to it and some probably put down other decks just to play that one.

[Teluin]

Perhaps I'm just remembering this website with somewhat nicely-tinted glasses, but there was a time when this website seemed to be less whiny. People wanted WotC to unban things, rather than being so quick to scream 'BAN ___!' because they didn't enjoy a certain card. Now maybe it's because WotC has been printing stupid cards the last decade, but people seem to ignore that Legacy's card pool contains answers to everything an opponent can do. You can choose to play those answers and should you not want to, then that's your choice. Don't cry that you don't play an answer so a card should be banned. Heck, why come on here to bitch about something you seem to hate, rather than just letting those who enjoy it do so in peace? There are so many people in this thread who have written in the past that they've 'quit Legacy' and yet they continue to log on and just talk shit. These people stand out to me because they are on my Ignore list. I guess I'm just annoyed, why isn't there an Ignore Thread option?

TL;DR stop being turds

[H]

Perhaps I'm just remembering this website with somewhat nicely-tinted glasses, but there was a time when this website seemed to be less whiny. People wanted WotC to unban things, rather than being so quick to scream 'BAN ___!' because they didn't enjoy a certain card. Now maybe it's because WotC has been printing stupid cards the last decade, but people seem to ignore that Legacy's card pool contains answers to everything an opponent can do. You can choose to play those answers and should you not want to, then that's your choice. Don't cry that you don't play an answer so a card should be banned. Heck, why come on here to bitch about something you seem to hate, rather than just letting those who enjoy it do so in peace? There are so many people in this thread who have written in the past that they've 'quit Legacy' and yet they continue to log on and just talk shit. These people stand out to me because they are on my Ignore list. I guess I'm just annoyed, why isn't there an Ignore Thread option?

TL;DR stop being turds

Insert Phil Hellmuth: "If there weren't luck involved, I would win every time."

Only substitute "luck" with "OP cards that should be banned."

Why does this happen more now? Well, we are all getting "older" as a community and I think that leads to more of the Dunning–Kruger effect than before. Plus, there is a great-deal of post-modern thought going into the idea that somehow since there are something like 17,000 legal cards in Legacy, there should be some huge number of viable decks. This, of course, is utter nonsense, because 99% (or probably even more) are terrible. The entire point of Legacy is to play with the best of the best-plausibly-allowable-4-of-cards possible. As I said in my previous post, it's absurd to think that we should ban Underground Sea to "allow" Jwar Isle Refuge to see play. So, for the same reason, it's rather absurd to me to ban Deathrite so you can play whatever the hell you think that will make viable, Goblin Lackey?

There aren't an infinite number, or even an arbitrarily large finite one (like 7.269254386685E+171 seeming simple combinations) of viable Legacy approaches. That isn't a bug, it's a feature. Things should only be banned if they present themselves as unreasonably more viable than anything else. I don't see that happening now and I don't think it is going to happen. I think the historical lesson of Tarmogoyf is really apt here.

The historical lesson of Affinity tells us that it is almost always better to "do the thing" than try to be the one "stopping people doing the thing." Right now, Deathrite is the thing and so more people are doing it. This is why no one maindecks Rest In Peace, unless that's their "thing." But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, because if we imagine that there should be a culling of the "top card(s)" it will never end. The whole point of Legacy is that the power-level is high enough and the approaches diverse enough that even when things are marginally better than others, there isn't oppression by an archetype.

[Lemnear]

I know I am in the minority when I say this. So I am not trying to convince anyone to take my side. But I feel that the legacy ban list should be as small as possible. So here is a list of cards I feel should be unbanned and banned to make legacy the format is should be.

Unban: Demonic Tutor, Earthcraft, Mana Drain, Mind Twist, Survival of the Fittest, Wheel of Fortune.

Ban: Deathrite Shaman, Show and Tell, Tendrils of Agony

That's one random and inconsistent list. Once you suggest to chop the enabler, the other time the killcon.

You dont wanna get blown out by S&T but by Mindtwist or DT is ok. You hate DRS' graveyard shenanigans but want SotF legal, which would have to deal with DRS, if you didnt decide to remove the SotF-combo-hate from Legacy regardless. You suggest banning ToA in exchange for Demonic tutor while storm can easily kill you with Empty the Warrens, Grapeshot or Brainfreeze? Literally EVERY storm player will gladly make the trade.

[ReAnimator]

I know I am in the minority when I say this. So I am not trying to convince anyone to take my side. But I feel that the legacy ban list should be as small as possible. So here is a list of cards I feel should be unbanned and banned to make legacy the format is should be.

Unban: Demonic Tutor, Earthcraft, Mana Drain, Mind Twist, Survival of the Fittest, Wheel of Fortune.

Ban: Deathrite Shaman, Show and Tell, Tendrils of Agony.

Slowing down combo decks, and removing the insane brokenness that Deathrite Shaman brings to the format, would allow more cards to be taken off the list. People will say..but but Demonic Tutor is broken! Well, it's barely better than infernal tutor or burning wish. And if you remove the insane combo cards out of the format, what will you be tutoring? High Tide? Exhume? Brain Freeze? These seem fair to me. Wheel of Fortune in a non tendrils format seems fair to me. Again, if the biggest combo decks in the format are High Tide and Reanimator, I think the control and tempo decks in the format can handle them. Whats the broken play in this format? T1 Entomb, T2 Dark Ritual Demonic Tutor Reanimate? T2 Ancient Tomb, Lotus Petal into Show and Tell is already more broken than that. And we come to Deathrite. A one mana birds of paradise, who is also graeyard hate, and is also a win conditon, is way too insane at one mana. Legacy has become a format where pretty much every fair, aggro, tempo, or midrange deck has to run Deathrite. I know everyones knee jerk reaction would be to say I'm crazy. But really think what this format would look like. Show me a deck that would be more busted than the decks already in legacy. Show me how I am wrong about how this format change would allow more diversity in the format.


Bless your heart.

[Dice_Box]

Unban: Demonic Tutor, Earthcraft, Mana Drain, Mind Twist, Survival of the Fittest, Wheel of Fortune.

Ban: Deathrite Shaman, Show and Tell, Tendrils of Agony.

That's an interesting suggestion but two things jump out at me at the same time.
1. If you plan to unban Survival you don't ban DRS in the same announcement. Survival is more graveyard dependent than most, leave the hate live.

2. Wheel is bad. Like really bad. You want to take Tendrils out while leaving Empty? OK. That's fine. With a Red draw engine like that I would be playing TES anyway. Add in Demonic...

On other topics, Mana Drain would make Miracles suck to play against but I don't think it would break open anything. Earthcraft is beyond a talking point now, no one has ever made a good argument for its remaining banned that I have seen. Agreed with it too.

[janchu88]

Im neither on the ban Deathrite nor on the brainstorm side. If anything, get gitaxian Probe! Why?

1. No more virtual 56 card decks
2. Slightly nerf delve
3. No more turn 2 escalation from young pyromancer going nuts
4. No more perfect Info Games, actual skill is required to judge the game state. There is Nothing more boring than those Games where you get Probed turn 1 and then they can easily cantrip into the according counter strategy. This can take place but should require skill and not a dumb "free" cantrip.

And on the way you give a slight nerf to grixis, ant and some Show and tell builds, without killing those decks.

Imho gitaxian Probe adds Nothing positive to the game

My 2 Cents

[taconaut]

OK, I'm going to bat for Probe. Janchu, I'm not trying to attack you specifically, you just conveniently collected many of the arguments I've seen for banning it, so I'm quoting you.



1. No more virtual 56 card decks


If this is such a big deal, why isn't everyone playing Manamorphoses? Street Wraiths? Baubles?

I believe the impact of this is strongly overstated, and cards like this impact your mulligan decisions and constrain how many copies of other cards you can include. One of my buddies has this same complaint and thinks everyone should be playing four Probes for the same reason, but I've never seen him register his BUG lists with more than zero copies, so clearly he thinks other stuff is more important.



2. Slightly nerf delve


Honestly this is probably a fine reason, but I honestly don't think it's a big deal. Angler is pretty good, but I don't think it's format defining, and the format warping delve spells have already been banned.



3. No more turn 2 escalation from young pyromancer going nuts


"My opponent totally went nuts on me last round, he got an almost-free merfolk of the pearl trident"

Hyperbole aside, is this really that big of an issue? Probe plus flashback Therapy is literally Thoughtseize. Where are all the people mad about Thoughtseize? It gives you as much information as probe, PLUS gets rid of their best card.



4. No more perfect Info Games, actual skill is required to judge the game state. There is Nothing more boring than those Games where you get Probed turn 1 and then they can easily cantrip into the according counter strategy. This can take place but should require skill and not a dumb "free" cantrip.


Followup from the Therapy discussion - Probe gives you exactly as much information as any hand-reveal discard spell. What is the big difference that makes everyone so mad about Probe?

Additionally, things that are more boring than probe by a huge margin:

- getting chaliced on one
- Show and Tell
- literally everything DnT does
- Hymn to Tourach
- many, many things that are not as innocuous as someone playing a cantrip

Moreover, it is not "perfect" information. It changes as soon as you have a draw step, or cast a brainstorm, or have tutors, or a million other things. It gives you a snapshot that does inform your decisions, which is an advantage that scales with skill - a person can play a probe in their first game of legacy, see their opponent's hand, and not have any idea what to do about it. Knowing what potential targets your opponent could get with their GSZ or Crop Rotation, for instance, is a Legacy-context-knowledge dependent skill.

Plus, why is it somehow more skillful to have your plan be, "well, they don't know what's in my hand, so maybe they'll make a mistake?" To me, that sounds way looser than taking a look and preparing accordingly. If your plan falls apart when your opponent knows what it is, maybe it's just a bad plan.



Imho gitaxian Probe adds Nothing positive to the game


In my opinion, chalice offers basically nothing positive to the game, but I also understand that there has to be some sort of interaction for cantrip-based decks, so I try to prepare for it instead of calling for a ban. I feel like sentiments like the one we're discussing with Probe is why wizards prints very few interesting things anymore; if you like engine combo or reactive control decks or prison strategies, well, that is unfortunate, because Wizards doesn't and will take every chance they get to tell you so. There are so many midrange-mélange formats; let's keep Legacy cool and interesting.

[Stuart]

You had me up until here:


Moreover, it is not "perfect" information. It changes as soon as you have a draw step, or cast a brainstorm, or have tutors, or a million other things. It gives you a snapshot that does inform your decisions, which is an advantage that scales with skill - a person can play a probe in their first game of legacy, see their opponent's hand, and not have any idea what to do about it. Knowing what potential targets your opponent could get with their GSZ or Crop Rotation, for instance, is a Legacy-context-knowledge dependent skill.

Plus, why is it somehow more skillful to have your plan be, "well, they don't know what's in my hand, so maybe they'll make a mistake?" To me, that sounds way looser than taking a look and preparing accordingly. If your plan falls apart when your opponent knows what it is, maybe it's just a bad plan.

I'm with you that Probe doesn't need a ban, but you can't seriously argue that playing blind is equally-as- or less-skill-intensive than playing with perfect information.

[Fox]

If your plan falls apart when your opponent knows what it is, maybe it's just a bad plan.
Or....maybe they were on the draw and you went turn 1 threat, and if they see exactly what's in your hand then the highest variance line of blindly Wasteland from behind has all risk removed. Maybe it was a similar scenario where they went turn 1 threat, and without a plan to address that threat you see their hand and know the best play is to discard from behind before even committing any of your mana for the turn. Maybe they see the coast is clear for Daze. Maybe they see their turn 1 threat needs to wait for land #2 to protect it...There are too many scenarios to casually proclaim that a plan is bad because it lost to Probe and overlook the winning lines of play it opened up. Even knowing something as simple as what to grab with a fetch, and if your fetch is threatened by Stifle, has game-altering implications.

It's not about a plan not being good or not, it's more about the cumulative effects of perfect information throughout a long event. Not only do you get access to otherwise clairvoyant lines of play, but turn zero Probe -> Sea -> Therapy ends a lot of games of legacy before they even began (this is more true in a non-combo deck like Grixis Delver). Points like fueling delve, perfect information, and exacerbating first player advantage are not insignificant. When you freely get to know how best negate opponent interaction, the card can be said to be both inherently uninteractive [opponent's point of view] and unfairly advantageous as it informs the Probe player how to most effectively interact. The purpose of Probe is to create non-games, beginning at the first main phase; not every deck is designed to capitalize on it's inclusion, and not every deck that employs it will use it in the same way.

As a thought experiment, imagine that Brainstorm is not in the format. If, after Ponder, your backup cantrip is Preordain instead of Probe, you're probably looking at a lower win percentage; doubling up the ability to dig rather than gaining access to perfect info is almost certainly worse. The tricky part with identifying how significant the free info is in legacy currently is that Brainstorm fixes hands, Ponder finds lands, and if you took Ponder out for Probe (rather than adding Probe on top of the other two) it wouldn't matter if the free info revealed that you're about to face mana denial since you don't have the cantrip that finds lands anymore.

[taconaut]

you can't seriously argue that playing blind is equally-as- or less-skill-intensive than playing with perfect information.

Certainly not - what I'm disputing is that the information is "perfect" (it changes as soon as they draw a card, or brainstorm, or if you don't know their deck contents and they have a tutor) and that playing with perfect information makes it impossible to employ skillful play. For instance, Go and Chess have perfect information, and no one is asserting that Chess grandmasters lack skill. The data you get is only as good as your ability to employ it.

For example, I lent my friend my dredge deck for his first Legacy tournament, and in the first few rounds, he therapied his opponent and named something like Ponder (which is not horrible, but not really as relevant when you are trying to Dread return someone). His opponent asked, "why didn't you just name Force?," and he said, "well, I don't really know what I'm doing." Similarly, people Thoughtseize me all the time while I'm playing ANT, and many of them pick the wrong card to discard, so I kill them anyway - even though they had all necessary information, they did not have the skill to convert it into actual game impact.

The point I was making there, is just that "taking risks" isn't any more inherently skillful - if some guy is the Maverick player or something and he's mad that his ANT opponent gets to probe him and see a mitt full of green cards that don't do anything and then they just kill him, it's not probe's fault for letting them know that, it's on Maverick guy for hoping that having unknown cards in hand is some kind of defense.


Or....maybe they were on the draw and you went turn 1 threat, and if they see exactly what's in your hand then the highest variance line of blindly Wasteland from behind has all risk removed. Maybe it was a similar scenario where they went turn 1 threat, and without a plan to address that threat you see their hand and know the best play is to discard from behind before even committing any of your mana for the turn. Maybe they see the coast is clear for Daze. Maybe they see their turn 1 threat needs to wait for land #2 to protect it...There are too many scenarios to casually proclaim that a plan is bad because it lost to Probe and overlook the winning lines of play it opened up. Even knowing something as simple as what to grab with a fetch, and if your fetch is threatened by Stifle, has game-altering implications.


Why are any of these things bad? I guess maybe they just don't bother me as much? What if they just made the correct decisions without probing you? Plus, they still have to be at least good enough to know that what they see should alter their line of play in some way.



It's not about a plan not being good or not, it's more about the cumulative effects of perfect information throughout a long event. Not only do you get access to otherwise clairvoyant lines of play, but turn zero Probe -> Sea -> Therapy ends a lot of games of legacy before they even began (this is more true in a non-combo deck like Grixis Delver). Points like fueling delve, perfect information, and exacerbating first player advantage are not insignificant. When you freely get to know how best negate opponent interaction, the card can be said to be both inherently uninteractive [opponent's point of view] and unfairly advantageous as it informs the Probe player how to most effectively interact. The purpose of Probe is to create non-games, beginning at the first main phase; not every deck is designed to capitalize on it's inclusion, and not every deck that employs it will use it in the same way.

Again, the information is perfect for a turn at most. Also, the bolded line is literally thoughtsieze. Why does everyone lose it over probe + therapy, but not thoughtsieze? If all these people playing Probe + Therapy are secretly scrubs that would have no idea what to name if not for their cantrip, then what are they doing in all of the games where they don't draw probe and therapy together in their opener? Surely that would offset some of the percentage they gain from the ones where they do get to look, and they'd be better off with Thoughtsieze, right?

Probe makes games more interactive, not less, because of the dynamic you're describing - if I know what I need to play around/have to beat, I have to make an effort to counteract it. Grixis delver is fundamentally interactive, that's one of the reasons many skillful players are drawn to it, and if you want to take probe away to stop them from planning their turns, it's not that you want more interaction, it's that you want them to have to guess at what you have.

I think the last sentence is a great example of why Probe shouldn't be banned - if it's not in every deck, and matters differently for the decks that do employ it, is it really oppressive?

Edited to address your last point:



As a thought experiment, imagine that Brainstorm is not in the format. If, after Ponder, your backup cantrip is Preordain instead of Probe, you're probably looking at a lower win percentage; doubling up the ability to dig rather than gaining access to perfect info is almost certainly worse.

If that's the case, why doesn't Miracles play Probe?

You already acknowledged that there are deck-specific reasons to use one or the other, and not every blue deck plays Probe, implying that the card is powerful and flexible, but not format-warping, and therefore not banworthy.

[Fjaulnir]

Also, the bolded line is literally thoughtsieze. Why does everyone lose it over probe + therapy, but not thoughtsieze?

Except it's not, and it's often 'literally' DoubleThoughtseize (for only 2 life once though), and I've even had it be a TripleThoughtseizeFor2Life.

Does this look like a fine new card design?
"B: Target opponent reveals their hand. Choose as many cards as you choose with the same name, then that player discards that card. You lose 2 life and the next Delve spell you cast costs :1: less.

When this card is in your deck, you can register a 56 card deck.

Flashback: Sacrifice a creature, ~, you don't lose 2 life."

I'd play that over Thoughtseize any day :tongue:


If they blind Therapy me and hit 2-3 cards, I just laugh it off and praise their skill in naming cards that I'm likely to have and I won't be more than 2% salty at most. If they Probe-Therapy into a 2/3-for-1, I'd ragequit every single time if i wasn't too attached to winning that I'd still try to get that 10% chance that I'm still winning that game.



PS and I don't think 'just don't ever keep hands that have 2-3'offs' is a good answer :tongue:

[ahg113]

I fully agree with you taconaut.

Folks are more beat out of shape about it being a phyrexian mana than the actual effect of the card. No one complains about Peek , but heaven forbid Legacy had to swap Brainstorm for Portent.

With the color pie experiencing a lot of creep, most of it in Blue's favor, it's amusing that a blue card can be well utilized in non-blue shells and folks get upset.

[taconaut]

PS and I don't think 'just don't ever keep hands that have 2-3'offs' is a good answer :tongue:

Not in for Highlander, huh? I heard it was actually a pretty cool format :tongue:


Except it's not, and it's often 'literally' DoubleThoughtseize (for only 2 life once though), and I've even had it be a TripleThoughtseizeFor2Life.

Does this look like a fine new card design?
"B: Target opponent reveals their hand. Choose as many cards as you choose with the same name, then that player discards that card. You lose 2 life and the next Delve spell you cast costs :1: less. this is functionally different, because it would make a delve spell actually cost two less, right?

When this card is in your deck, you can register a 56 card deck.

Flashback: Sacrifice a creature, ~, you don't lose 2 life." you do need a creature to sacrifice, though.

I'd play that over Thoughtseize any day :tongue:

If they blind Therapy me and hit 2-3 cards, I just laugh it off and praise their skill in naming cards that I'm likely to have and I won't be more than 2% salty at most. If they Probe-Therapy into a 2/3-for-1, I'd ragequit every single time if i wasn't too attached to winning that I'd still try to get that 10% chance that I'm still winning that game.


I think this has some truth to it, and I understand that there are some small differences that can be relevant (like the multiple cards scenarios), but still, no one has addressed the fact that at some level, the base case is a Thoughtseize. Here, it sounds like the card you have an issue with is Cabal Therapy.

A lot of the time, when I'm therapying someone, I'm just naming whatever I can't beat anyway - if you have it, great, one obstacle down for me; if you don't, great, that was the thing I couldn't beat. Thoughtseize always hits whatever is relevant in their hand (except for Brainstorm scenarios, but I think that's a separate discussion from Probe and doesn't change for therapy), so why doesn't it bother people? I'm not trying to trick people into answering in some way to corner them, I just genuinely could not care even a little bit about my opponent Gitaxian Probing me.

[Fox]

For instance, Go and Chess have perfect information, and no one is asserting that Chess grandmasters lack skill. [1]

The point I was making there, is just that "taking risks" isn't any more inherently skillful - if some guy is the Maverick player or something and he's mad that his ANT opponent gets to probe him and see a mitt full of green cards that don't do anything and then they just kill him, it's not probe's fault for letting them know that, it's on Maverick guy for hoping that having unknown cards in hand is some kind of defense. [2]

What if they just made the correct decisions without probing you? [3]

Again, the information is perfect for a turn at most. Also, the bolded line is literally thoughtsieze. Why does everyone lose it over probe + therapy, but not thoughtsieze? If all these people playing Probe + Therapy are secretly scrubs that would have no idea what to name if not for their cantrip, then what are they doing in all of the games where they don't draw probe and therapy together in their opener? Surely that would offset some of the percentage they gain from the ones where they do get to look, and they'd be better off with Thoughtsieze, right? [4]

Probe makes games more interactive, not less, because of the dynamic you're describing - if I know what I need to play around/have to beat, I have to make an effort to counteract it. Grixis delver is fundamentally interactive, that's one of the reasons many skillful players are drawn to it, and if you want to take probe away to stop them from planning their turns, it's not that you want more interaction, it's that you want them to have to guess at what you have. [5]

I think the last sentence is a great example of why Probe shouldn't be banned - if it's not in every deck, and matters differently for the decks that do employ it, is it really oppressive? [6]

If that's the case, why doesn't Miracles play Probe? [7]

You already acknowledged that there are deck-specific reasons to use one or the other, and not every blue deck plays Probe, implying that the card is powerful and flexible, but not format-warping, and therefore not banworthy. [8]
[1] Both players have perfect information, not one.
[2] Going all-in blindly isn't an insignificant risk; if you do this you will not make deep tournament runs on a consistent basis.
[3] It would mean that we were playing a real game of skill within the framework of variance. At its best Magic is the same as any other game where the person who makes the best decisions should win (rather than luck of the opening hands/draw and luck of the matchup). The intent of Probe is to freely participate in a game where every decision you make is intrinsically more valuable.
[4] A simple scenario would be you went turn 1 fetch -> dual land -> Thoughtseize them and yep, you just lost to Wasteland. Probe's impact begins before a land is played or a fetch is cracked; if you guess wrong you're already committed to the fallout with Thoughtseize.
[5] No, I want them to have the same starting point for decision making, and to have the same risk attached to the making of a decision. Magic doesn't become a better game when someone freely gets access to the best interactive decisions, which are necessarily the best because they make the opponent's interactive decisions worse.
[6] It's not about being oppressive as much as the point of it being to freely create an uneven playing field. It's not just about getting the best line of play & downplaying risk, it's a card waiting to be broken by mechanics like delve. Probe doesn't ruin entire formats like say Counterbalance [enabled] can, but it certainly doesn't make them better.
[7] Because it doesn't work with Terminus, Predict, CB, or any of the reactive control elements? Because it hardly matters [more than a currently slotted card] in a deck that is designed is to answer any strategy in a reactive fashion? There's a laundry list of why it doesn't make a lot of sense; I'm not sure how to answer that other than some decks aren't going to alter their play patterns to an appreciable degree based on a Peek effect??
[8] It's a problematic card in that it's design will never favor a more interactive or fair* game of magic. It is a negative force that can only become more negative - that doesn't mean it must has to be banned, but it will always have to be watched because at its core it represents poor game design/theory.
*fair as in player skill, not "fair deck" strategies.

For the record I think Phyrexian mana could be largely fixed by having these two rules:
-you may not pay life instead of mana for this spell until you have played [as in somehow gotten onto the battlefield] a basic land which could make the appropriate color.
-if you have not had a main phase yet, you may pay life instead of mana without presenting the basic land which makes the appropriate color.

[taconaut]

[1] Both players have perfect information, not one.

I get what you're saying, but then why don't you have probe in Maverick? Based on your other arguments, probe is free and carries no cost to run, and would even out the information asymmetry. Yet, no one (that I know of) does this.

[2] Going all-in blindly isn't an insignificant risk; if you do this you will not make deep tournament runs on a consistent basis.

Agreed, though I think plenty of non-probe decks go deep regularly.

[3] It would mean that we were playing a real game of skill within the framework of variance. At its best Magic is the same as any other game where the person who makes the best decisions should win (rather than luck of the opening hands/draw and luck of the matchup). The intent of Probe is to freely participate in a game where every decision you make is intrinsically more valuable.

Playing probe is part of making the best decisions. It's not possible to both want to play a game where people making the best decisions are rewarded and be mad that probe allows that to happen. If the person is good, they will make many of the right decisions anyway. Any other way of characterizing it is purely variance, not skill ("I want to win even when I don't draw my hate because they didn't know I didn't draw it") Variance and skill are on a spectrum, and reducing variance typically increases skill impact. Gitaxian Probe reduces variance.

[4] A simple scenario would be you went turn 1 fetch -> dual land -> Thoughtseize them and yep, you just lost to Wasteland. Probe's impact begins before a land is played or a fetch is cracked; if you guess wrong you're already committed to the fallout with Thoughtseize.

This is a good point, and I like that you're trying to address my question about what really makes TS any different from CT.

[5] No, I want them to have the same starting point for decision making, and to have the same risk attached to the making of a decision. Magic doesn't become a better game when someone freely gets access to the best interactive decisions, which are necessarily the best because they make the opponent's interactive decisions worse.

This one I can't really dispute, as it's more of a preference. I do get what you're saying though; I've enjoyed plenty of games where I took a risk to go off with ANT and made it, but I'm not sure that's always better...however, everything you do in magic is designed to make your opponents' options worse, so I'm not sure that's relevant.

[6] It's not about being oppressive as much as the point of it being to freely create an uneven playing field. It's not just about getting the best line of play & downplaying risk, it's a card waiting to be broken by mechanics like delve. Probe doesn't ruin entire formats like say Counterbalance [enabled] can, but it certainly doesn't make them better.

I actually didn't mind counterbalance either, but that ship has sailed. I personally think Probe is a sweet card, and acknowledge that many don't, but I'd say probe is neutral at worst.

[7] Because it doesn't work with Terminus, Predict, CB, or any of the reactive control elements? Because it hardly matters [more than a currently slotted card] in a deck that is designed is to answer any strategy in a reactive fashion? There's a laundry list of why it doesn't make a lot of sense; I'm not sure how to answer that other than some decks aren't going to alter their play patterns to an appreciable degree based on a Peek effect??

Right, so you're saying that it's not obviously optimal in many contexts, and there are pros and cons to the text that comes before "draw a card" on a cantrip. I'm asserting that Probe is an interesting twist on it that works for some decks (Storm, Grixis) and doesn't for others (Pile, Miracles). The way some people talk about it makes it sound like every deck should have four, and that's demonstrably not true based on the lists we commonly see (unless we think everyone is just behind the curve and should be playing four, but I doubt it).

[8] It's a problematic card in that it's design will never favor a more interactive or fair* game of magic. It is a negative force that can only become more negative - that doesn't mean it must has to be banned, but it will always have to be watched because at its core it represents poor game design/theory.

It does, though - Probe makes it so that people win fewer games by pretending they have something - if you can't beat them when they probe you, a lot of the time you can't beat them at all, and all the probe does is confirm it. Again, if it were that polarizing a force, everyone would play it (see mental misstep) and that would address issues of fairness, but people don't all play it, so it must not be that broken.

*fair as in player skill, not "fair deck" strategies.

For the record I think Phyrexian mana could be largely fixed by having these two rules:
-you may not pay life instead of mana for this spell until you have played [as in somehow gotten onto the battlefield] a basic land which could make the appropriate color.
-if you have not had a main phase yet, you may pay life instead of mana without presenting the basic land which makes the appropriate color.

I can't really speak to this. I think the constraints here are too complicated, though. Even still, they would more or less not change how I play Probe in Storm at all, so I'm not sure if it would help. I also aggressively fetch basics/play two islands though, so *shrug?*

[Blastoderm]

I think we need a bit more time to see if Deathrite is banworthy or if the meta will correct itself. GP Madrid team trios just finished and there were 3 chalice decks in the top 4 (2x red, 1x eldrazi). While Deathrite is incredibly strong, I'm not in favor of banning stuff every 6 months like Wizards does in Modern because people whine. Hell, the twitch chat was going nuts yesterday during the SCG Modern Open because storm was going off turn 5. It would actually make more sense to UNBAN things, like SotF.

[ahg113]

Except it's not, and it's often 'literally' DoubleThoughtseize (for only 2 life once though), and I've even had it be a TripleThoughtseizeFor2Life.

Does this look like a fine new card design?
"B: Target opponent reveals their hand. Choose as many cards as you choose with the same name, then that player discards that card. You lose 2 life and the next Delve spell you cast costs :1: less.

When this card is in your deck, you can register a 56 card deck.

Flashback: Sacrifice a creature, ~, you don't lose 2 life."

I'd play that over Thoughtseize any day :tongue:


If they blind Therapy me and hit 2-3 cards, I just laugh it off and praise their skill in naming cards that I'm likely to have and I won't be more than 2% salty at most. If they Probe-Therapy into a 2/3-for-1, I'd ragequit every single time if i wasn't too attached to winning that I'd still try to get that 10% chance that I'm still winning that game.



PS and I don't think 'just don't ever keep hands that have 2-3'offs' is a good answer :tongue:

That's magic though. As much as the good players and can trip cartel rage against the randomness, sometimes blowouts happen. As a manaless dredge player I accept that sometimes I don't get to play if leyline of the void comes down pre-game. Unless i'm mistaken, lots of people play counterspells, or resistors, and can interup the g.probe/therapy action, or hide cards via b.storm.

The joke about a 56 card deck doesn't sit well for some reason. Something something street wraith/manamorphose/baubles, can trip cartel, etc.

[Phoenix Ignition]

I think we need a bit more time to see if Deathrite is banworthy or if the meta will correct itself. GP Madrid team trios just finished and there were 3 chalice decks in the top 4 (2x red, 1x eldrazi). While Deathrite is incredibly strong, I'm not in favor of banning stuff every 6 months like Wizards does in Modern because people whine. Hell, the twitch chat was going nuts yesterday during the SCG Modern Open because storm was going off turn 5. It would actually make more sense to UNBAN things, like SotF.

Please never use Twitch chat for a barometer of anything reasonable ever. There are literally no Twitch chats that are anything but trolls. Even the Bob Ross Twitch chat just says RUINED all the time when he makes happy little trees.

[ahg113]

Fox
For the record I think Phyrexian mana could be largely fixed by having these two rules:
-you may not pay life instead of mana for this spell until you have played [as in somehow gotten onto the battlefield] a basic land which could make the appropriate color.
-if you have not had a main phase yet, you may pay life instead of mana without presenting the basic land which makes the appropriate color.*

taconaut
I can't really speak to this. I think the constraints here are too complicated, though. Even still, they would more or less not change how I play Probe in Storm at all, so I'm not sure if it would help. I also aggressively fetch basics/play two islands though, so *shrug?*

Quoting on phone more difficult than I thought.

This is lame, a fix akin to making brainstorm sorcery speed. G.probe is a seldom used card, not making belcher, manaless dredge, ruby storm, or x? over powered. Most of these arguments are having your cake and eating it too. Slap down a chalice, use FoW, leyline of sanctity, etc. etc., there are options.

[Fox]

@taconaut [1, 7, 8] the argument for Probe has to be more complex than if it were so good everyone would run it. A deck like maverick could use it to see an axis its opponent intends to interact on, but not actually have any cards its strategy could have employed to interact (like if you see Belcher ready to go off, you're still dead). In miracles it would be unhelpful to see Sylvan Library in their hand if you cut the maindeck CJ for Probe.

[2] When it comes to Delver decks there's no doubt that perfect play, made possible by the information a turn 1 Probe provides, wins a certain %age of legacy games...but on margins as narrow as Delver decks operate, having an interactive spell in place of Probe will provide more win %age when they're unable to gain additive advantage through Probe's pairing with potential 1 mana 2 for 1s (Therapy) and feeding of a delve engine. Speaking just of Delver decks, theory dictates you're more likely to make top8 if your variant can profitably use Probe - gaining perfect info without sacrificing power.

A more polarizing example of deep tournament runs could be made with infect, where one would expect that their winrate increase proportional to how many Probes they saw anytime they 'had it' and an opponent didn't.

[3] Harder to answer this...the unfair part has more to do with near-zero exposure to risk to gain advantage. Probe only really fits into proactive strategies, and you're playing into Chalice & burn on some level, but past that point a Probe player has committed nothing to which an opponent can interact against. It's kind of like playing Backgammon where one player always knows what their opponent's next roll will be - it's not really a healthy aspect of game design, nor is it about making the best decisions.

[5] Making an opponent's options worse is fine, but there should be an expectation that in doing so they have committed resources and in so doing have exposed themselves to risk. It's not what Probe does that offends, it's not even necessarily that it's mana positive (with delve), but the lack of preconditions [i.e. axes of interaction].

@ahg113 from mtgtop8: Gitaxian Probe coming in at 24% making it the 5th most played non-creature spell in legacy. The main decks you need to talk about with Probe (post-DTT ban) are Grixis Delver and ANT. Aside from a Chalice deck which will generally hate on any Probe deck, the suggestions are actively game-losing. Actually tagging on the requirement to 'show me the basic Island' to pay life for Probe not only maintains healthy use of the card, but it also prevents game-ending Probe->Sea->Therapy; particularly before an opponent has even had a chance to begin playing and especially in those games where they mulled into a duplicate nonland. So no, this is nothing like Brainstorm at sorcery speed - a turn 1 Brainstorm does not equal game over for an opponent. It's really important to understand the difference between Brainstorm being a high power card, and Gitaxian Probe not requiring you to have made a choice on land played - that choice is inherently subject to a risk of being interacted with.

[Stevestamopz]

I think if any card is going to go, it will be the stupid Probe.


Gitaxian Probe—Gitaxian Probe increased the number of third-turn kills in a few ways, but particularly by giving perfect information (and a card) to decks that often have to make strategic decisions about going "all-in." This hurt the ability of reactive decks to effectively bluff or for the aggressive deck to miss-sequence their turn. Ultimately, the card did too much for too little cost.


We believe by removing these free draw spells—and the perfect information that comes with Gitaxian Probe—we will significantly weaken Monastery Mentor–based strategies. Hopefully the move away from "free" spells in the Mentor decks will lessen the impact of the Workshop deck's various Sphere of Resistance effects, opening up the metagame.

Of note is that Legacy is currently the only tournament format where we have not taken action against Gitaxian Probe. Currently, the data does not support doing so in that format, and we examine each format individually.

A card that has been banned in Modern and is also restricted in Vintage is obviously quite powerful and it's pretty lolworthy to read people saying otherwise.

More to the point though, people are having a sook about Grixis Delver, and Wizard have demonstrated a willingness to cave to public pressure. Reading between the lines in the 24/04/17 update, they actually name it as a card they're keeping their eye on in Legacy. For all the Show and Tell players out there, what's 1 + 1?

Maybe it won't be banned in the next update, but if this meta-trend continues and more and more decks start adding it as a 4 of I predict it will be banned sooner rather than later. DRS will never be banned, it's a "pillar" of the format now. A bamboo pillar mind, not a classic athenian marble pillar but a pillar nonetheless.

[Hanni]

The fact that there are so many people that feel that something must always be banned is unfortunate. If you ban Deathrite Shaman... guess what? Delver is still the best deck in Legacy. If you ban Gitaxian Probe, guess what? Delver is still the best deck in Legacy.

You can go back to 2006 if you want to, it hasn't changed since Legacy's inception. Cheap efficient threats, cantrips, Force + Daze, cheap removal... it's been a tier 1 strategy for over 12 years.

When does the "let's ban the next best card" madness ever end?

[Ronald Deuce]

The fact that there are so many people that feel that something must always be banned is unfortunate. If you ban Deathrite Shaman... guess what? Delver is still the best deck in Legacy. If you ban Gitaxian Probe, guess what? Delver is still the best deck in Legacy.

You can go back to 2006 if you want to, it hasn't changed since Legacy's inception. Cheap efficient threats, cantrips, Force + Daze, cheap removal... it's been a tier 1 strategy for over 12 years.

When does the "let's ban the next best card" madness ever end?

This.

I get that there are cards that absolutely need banning, but going after shitty targets like Probe and DRS isn't going to change anything.

I'm still not a ban advocate, but how is either of those cards worse for gameplay than a Chalice on 1? How is either of those cards worse for gameplay than Brainstorm (awesome and sine dubio totally valid though that card is)? Show and Tell (a card with built-in outs to itself)?

Banning "the best card" just produces a new "the best card." I'm glad Miracles took a hit—much as I wish they'd hit Counterbalance instead of Top—but that was a ban that addressed a clear, omnipresent problem of a single deck's taking multiple top slots at most tournaments, even when it was using terrible win conditions. (Seriously, stop using stuff that isn't Monastery Mentor. It's getting pretty painful to watch.) How is banning Probe going to stop Thoughtseize decks from using their Therapies well? How is banning Deathrite Shaman going to prevent the very same decks from running Birds? Why would those decks even need Birds to begin with? None of these arguments makes sense. I've (semi-facetiously) suggested banning Delver of Secrets, but I'm not dumb enough to think that would change the U/B Value strategy or make Leovold unplayable or any other similar nonsense.

Bans should keep decks in check, not kill them outright. I'm not sure banning Probe or Deathrite would kill any decks, but why would we ban them if they're nowhere near the top slots? Hell, Delver still delivers more damage than Deathrite and pitches to Force, but people don't complain.

[Hrothgar]

When does the "let's ban the next best card" madness ever end?

Quote for you.
The medium legacy player prefer complain, asking BS/another one blue card or DS ban then use brain to win.

[Megadeus]

I'd be fine with a probe ban. Card is fucking miserable. And it's completely retarded. It's a draw spell that gets perfect info, adds mana and storm, and costs no mana. There's a reason it's banned or restricted in every other format. But Phyrexian mana has proven time and again it's a completely retarded mechanic that should've never been created

[Megadeus]

This.

I get that there are cards that absolutely need banning, but going after shitty targets like Probe and DRS isn't going to change anything.

I'm still not a ban advocate, but how is either of those cards worse for gameplay than a Chalice on 1? How is either of those cards worse for gameplay than Brainstorm (awesome and sine dubio totally valid though that card is)? Show and Tell (a card with built-in outs to itself)?

Banning "the best card" just produces a new "the best card." I'm glad Miracles took a hit—much as I wish they'd hit Counterbalance instead of Top—but that was a ban that addressed a clear, omnipresent problem of a single deck's taking multiple top slots at most tournaments, even when it was using terrible win conditions. (Seriously, stop using stuff that isn't Monastery Mentor. It's getting pretty painful to watch.) How is banning Probe going to stop Thoughtseize decks from using their Therapies well? How is banning Deathrite Shaman going to prevent the very same decks from running Birds? Why would those decks even need Birds to begin with? None of these arguments makes sense. I've (semi-facetiously) suggested banning Delver of Secrets, but I'm not dumb enough to think that would change the U/B Value strategy or make Leovold unplayable or any other similar nonsense.

Bans should keep decks in check, not kill them outright. I'm not sure banning Probe or Deathrite would kill any decks, but why would we ban them if they're nowhere near the top slots? Hell, Delver still delivers more damage than Deathrite and pitches to Force, but people don't complain.

Let's not begin to even pretend that Birds is nearly on the same level as Deathrite

[Hanni]

Let's not begin to even pretend that Birds is nearly on the same level as Deathrite

And lets not pretend that Werebear is nearly on the same level as Tarmogoyf.

[Stevestamopz]

And lets not pretend that Werebear is nearly on the same level as Tarmogoyf.

https://media.giphy.com/media/CDJo4EgHwbaPS/giphy.gif

Who said it was? Am I missing something?

[phg22]

When does the "let's ban the next best card" madness ever end?

If you think this is what's happening blame WotC for the way they've handled modern. Players expect changes at every announcement now; it's absurd.

I'd like more transparency from the actual decision makers. I was surprised Top got the axe when it did simply because the miracle core had been legal in the format for nearly five years. I compare this to Cruise, Dig, and Misstep, and wonder why not sooner. I would be nice if we had more insights on their thoughts on DRS in the format. If the card is a pillar, and arguing to ban it is as much a waste of space as arguing to ban cantrips or fetch lands, fine, but at least make that clear.

The SCG Worcester metagame was troubling. If GP Seattle looks similar, I'd be shocked if WotC takes no action. While I'd love to see TNN go, I imagine they will act on their obvious hate for probe, and/or blame DRS.

[Matsu]

...

The SCG Worcester metagame was troubling. If GP Seattle looks similar, I'd be shocked if WotC takes no action. While I'd love to see TNN go, I imagine they will act on their obvious hate for probe, and/or blame DRS.

Can someone make a new poll before GP Seattle?

Include Probe, DRS, Brainstorm, Fetch, TNN, S&T, Leo, Terminus... I am just curious what the outcome will be.

A new Poll every 2 month which end a week before banning announcement will be great.
If we keep the records of every poll, we will be able to analyse the metagame from a longer perspective. This will give ammo to a constructive discussion based on metagame and people opinion.

[Whitefaces]

Ban Tarmogoyf!

[Matsu]

Ban Tarmogoyf!
^+1

[Hrothgar]

This is not a % of meta question, this is a "sense of the card" and "good games" question, but maybe this is not clear and I try to explain, but this is impossible to understand for some player frustrated by blue, who find, in Chalice, a simply brainless way to beat blue decks.
Probe and Chalice are, in their substances, two stupid card who can give, to the player who play them, an incredible advantage in asymmetrical way.

All the decks who play probe, play Therapy in 75 (monored storm no obv) and, with Pyromancer (in Grixis Delver, ee), this make a too strong interaction who can destroy the opponent hand with no use of brain, just only reading the card in the opponent hand.
The 70% of times, there ere are no difference in player's skill for this Pyromancer+Probe+Therapy loop, and this is not a good Magic.

Deck with Chalice of the Void, too many times, have an incredible advantage just playing a solland and chalice in turn 1, transforming the opponent's hand in a mulligan at 2/3 with an asymmetrical advantage for the chalice player.
This is no good because of the opponent, substantially, do not play a mtg game many times.
Again, the chalice player gets an advantage in a passively way (with no use of brain), and this is not a good Magic.

Banning this 2 cards, there are no risk of an ANT explosion, because ANT losing the Probe (+ Therapy), and this means who storm player have other trouble (ee can't sack LED in response to a Probe and other tricks).

Oh, just noticed who Gitaxian Probe is a blue card :wink:

The time running but I have the same Thought... now, with the rise of Moon / Dragon Stompy (...) this Thought is more strong the before.


I'd be fine with a probe ban.... And it's completely retarded. ....

I agree with you but do not forget Chalice of the Void that, instead, it's very skilled and difficult card to use..
Both are wrong and need ban.

[JDK]

I'm not sure banning Probe or Deathrite would kill any decks, but why would we ban them if they're nowhere near the top slots? Hell, Delver still delivers more damage than Deathrite and pitches to Force, but people don't complain.


They aren't anywhere near the top slots? :really:
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-staples/legacy/full/all

I still don't get how people compare Delver and DRS by only "flipped power > elf power, is blue".

[kinda]

Ban Tarmogoyf!

Boo.....no we need more creatures that get hosed by rip. #maketerravoregreatagain.

[CptHaddock]

Can we ban people who do even/odd rolls?

[Hanni]

Who said it was? Am I missing something?

Maybe a better analogy would have been Delver of Secrets and Monastery Swiftspear replacing Wild Nacatl and Kird Ape?

Anyway, yes, you missed something. The point went over your head.

Back when Goyf was printed, the arguments for banning it were not very different conceptually from the arguments against DRS today. It was far more efficient than everything else, and previously playable cards were no longer playable.

Fast forward to today. There has been continuous creature power creep, and the threats continue to become more efficient and more powerful for their cost. DRS is obviously more powerful than Birds of Paradise. It's simply the way power creep works.

The point is, being an efficient threat that sees play in a wide variety of decks isn't a justified reason to ban something. Tarmogoyf was just as ubiquitous back in 2010 as DRS is today.

If we ban DRS for being too efficient, do we then ban Delver next? And after Delver, do we then go after Gurmag Angler? Then Tarmogoyf? Goblin Guide?!

The point is, why does something always need to be banned? The format is healthy.

The most justified argument that I've seen so far is that Grixis Delver is the best deck in the format and constantly putting multiple copies into Top 8's... but the thing is, even if you ban DRS, Delver is still going to be the best deck in the format. I'd argue that a ban on Delver of Secrets would do more to reduce the amount of "Delver" decks (Waste/Daze tempo decks) making Top 8's, if that was the goal.

[jasper]

Can we ban people who do even/odd rolls?

Seems odd that someone would take issue with dice rolls. Even for the 'ban everything!' crowd, I think this goes too far.

[Lemnear]

The only thing DRS is guilty of in terms of damaging gamebalance, is enabling 4c goodstuff monstrosities, which are not kept in check by Wasteland, Bloodmoon & Co anymore.

The days people actually got punished for greedy manabases have ended the day 4c Deathblade became a thing. Every deck with DRS + Cantrips since then is just following the traits.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Seems odd that someone would take issue with dice rolls. Even for the 'ban everything!' crowd, I think this goes too far.
http://barkbarkwoofwoof.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Sarcasm-Sign-10-07-15.jpg

[taconaut]

@taconaut [1, 7, 8] the argument for Probe has to be more complex than if it were so good everyone would run it. A deck like maverick could use it to see an axis its opponent intends to interact on, but not actually have any cards its strategy could have employed to interact (like if you see Belcher ready to go off, you're still dead). In miracles it would be unhelpful to see Sylvan Library in their hand if you cut the maindeck CJ for Probe.

I don't think it does. If the animating principle of the ban list is that we remove cards that are format warping, because they force you to play them or play to beat them (you may disagree with this formula), then a card that is useful in some decks but not others does not meet that criteria. It is impossible to hold the position that Probe is both:

1) Lacking relevant costs/risks to play
2) Unplayable in some subset of decks

If (1) is true, and the card is truly strictly positive EV, then it must be included in every deck played by a competitive player. If (2) is true, (1) cannot be.


[2] When it comes to Delver decks there's no doubt that perfect play, made possible by the information a turn 1 Probe provides, wins a certain %age of legacy games...but on margins as narrow as Delver decks operate, having an interactive spell in place of Probe will provide more win %age when they're unable to gain additive advantage through Probe's pairing with potential 1 mana 2 for 1s (Therapy) and feeding of a delve engine. Speaking just of Delver decks, theory dictates you're more likely to make top8 if your variant can profitably use Probe - gaining perfect info without sacrificing power.

A more polarizing example of deep tournament runs could be made with infect, where one would expect that their winrate increase proportional to how many Probes they saw anytime they 'had it' and an opponent didn't.

I can't really parse the italicized text, but I agree it's probable that Probe delver decks are better than non-Probe delver decks. I think the Infect example is a Red Herring at best and counterproductive to your argument at worst - when was the last time anyone won anything with Infect?

[3] Harder to answer this...the unfair part has more to do with near-zero exposure to risk to gain advantage. Probe only really fits into proactive strategies, Again, implying it is not too powerful and universally applicable and you're playing into Chalice & burn on some level, but past that point a Probe player has committed nothing to which an opponent can interact against. It's kind of like playing Backgammon where one player always knows what their opponent's next roll will be - it's not really a healthy aspect of game design, nor is it about making the best decisions.

Things that interact with Probe:
- you mentioned Chalice of the Void and Eidolon
- Leovold
- Spirit of the Labyrinth
- Resistors
- Thalia
- Cards that give players hexproof
- Canonist/Arcane Lab Effects
- Cards that obscure your hand's true contents (brainstorm, tutors)
- Pressuring their life total (I know 2 life is about as close to no cost as you can get in Magic, but it isn't actually nothing)
- Discard
- Permission

It is about making the best decisions - if I probe you, those decisions are easier to make. If you think that ability is bannably powerful, then why not play it in your deck?


[5] Making an opponent's options worse is fine, but there should be an expectation that in doing so they have committed resources and in so doing have exposed themselves to risk. It's not what Probe does that offends, it's not even necessarily that it's mana positive (with delve), but the lack of preconditions [i.e. axes of interaction].

Addressed above.

@ahg113 from mtgtop8: Gitaxian Probe coming in at 24% making it the 5th most played non-creature spell in legacy. The main decks you need to talk about with Probe (post-DTT ban) are Grixis Delver and ANT. Aside from a Chalice deck which will generally hate on any Probe deck, the suggestions are actively game-losing. Actually tagging on the requirement to 'show me the basic Island' to pay life for Probe not only maintains healthy use of the card, but it also prevents game-ending Probe->Sea->Therapy; particularly before an opponent has even had a chance to begin playing and especially in those games where they mulled into a duplicate nonland. So no, this is nothing like Brainstorm at sorcery speed - a turn 1 Brainstorm does not equal game over for an opponent. It's really important to understand the difference between Brainstorm being a high power card, and Gitaxian Probe not requiring you to have made a choice on land played - that choice is inherently subject to a risk of being interacted with.

I thought you wanted them to lead on Sea so you could Wasteland them? Moreover, what if they just fetch island, ponder, then turn two, probe you, play a sea, therapy you? I get what you're trying to say (probe players can sometimes plan during a period where other players have to guess) but this power is available to you! Surely there must be a reason not to avail yourself of it if it's such a big deal.





A card that has been banned in Modern and is also restricted in Vintage is obviously quite powerful and it's pretty lolworthy to read people saying otherwise.

I'm not disputing that it's powerful, but I do think Vintage and Modern are meaningfully different - in Vintage, Monastery Mentor is a much bigger deal, and the format revolves around various ways to cheat mana and make aggressive, swingy plays, which are both things Probe is good at, and potentially good enough at in that context that it warrants restriction. Modern is a completely separate discussion; they will ban literally anything and everything there, so I don't think it has any bearing on other formats. At least, I hope it doesn't have bearing on other formats...Modern used to be sweet, and now it is miserable, because they banned the soul out of it. I think Probe and Deathrite Shaman are definitely pushed, but I think they're right about where Legacy wants to be.

[Crimhead]

A card that has been banned in Modern and is also restricted in Vintage is obviously quite powerful and it's pretty lolworthy to read people saying otherwise.
Is anybody actually saying that? Every card in this format is "quite powerful". That's not really the relevant consideration.

- Mentor decks are not really a problem in Legacy. Is Grixis Tempo hitting Vintage Mentor levels of representation (honest question)?

- As for Modern, isn't that the format that had formerly banned Preordain and Wild Kitty (rhetorical question)? That's not how we roll in Legacy.

- Legacy has always had better reactive decks than a Modern player has ever dreamed of. We don't really have to worry about all-in decks here. In fact, combo decks are not a problem at all these days.

Lotus Petal, LED, and Chrome Mox are also Vintage restricted and banned in Modern (or would be if they had Modern printings). But it would be laughable to cite this as being in any way relevant to their impact on Legacy.



More to the point though, people are having a sook about Grixis Delver, and Wizard have demonstrated a willingness to cave to public pressure. Reading between the lines in the 24/04/17 update, they actually name it as a card they're keeping their eye on in Legacy.
I would agree this is the most likely ban, but not that it's likely. G-Probe is no MM or SDT (and look what it took to ban the latter - years of relative dominance as well as a logistic citation).

As for the 2017 WotC quote, worth noting that at the time they printed that they had approximately zero data from the post SDT Legacy (and they haven't mentioned it since). I wouldn't put much stock in that statement myself.


Can someone make a new poll before GP Seattle?

Include Probe, DRS, Brainstorm, Fetch, TNN, S&T, Leo, Terminus... I am just curious what the outcome will be.

A new Poll every 2 month which end a week before banning announcement will be great.
Yeah man, I was just thinking this dumpster-fire could use a regular dose of petrol!
:laugh:

[taconaut]

I would agree this is the most likely ban, but not that it's likely. G-Probe is no MM or SDT (and look what it took to ban the latter - years of relative dominance as well as a logistic citation).


I actually think it's very likely - they've called it out by name, and it's a card that fits into exactly the kinds of decks Wizards inexplicably hates. :frown:

[Crimhead]

I actually think it's very likely - they've called it out by name, and it's a card that fits into exactly the kinds of decks Wizards inexplicably hates. :frown:
If they make a ban, presumably they would sell it to us as a Grixis Delver nerf. They might hate Infect and Storm, but those decks do not warrant a ban at all.

Would G-Probe be the right ban to hurt Grixis?

Seems to me the deck did fine running Stifle. I tend to doubt a Probe ban would have a huge impact on that deck. If they want to hurt, Grixis, it would make more sense to hit Pyromance, or succumb to public outcry and ban DRS. Those bans would actually hurt Grixis (likely kill it), but still leave other Delver archetypes intact.

Note - upon this reflection I retract my statement that Probe is the most likely ban.

[PirateKing]

If they make a ban, presumably they would sell it to us as a Grixis Delver nerf. They might hate Infect and Storm, but those decks do not warrant a ban at all.

Would G-Probe be the right ban to hurt Grixis?

Seems to me the deck did fine running Stifle. I tend to doubt a Probe ban would have a huge impact on that deck. If they want to hurt, Grixis, it would make more sense to hit Pyromance, or succumb to public outcry and ban DRS. Those bans would actually hurt Grixis (likely kill it), but still leave other Delver archetypes intact.

Note - upon this reflection I retract my statement that Probe is the most likely ban.

No no, you're on to something.

Would they ban Gitaxian Probe? Sure why not.
Would they sell it as a nerf to Grixes Delver? Indubitably.
Would it have any effect on the performance of Grixis Delver? Not within significant figures.

Wizard's have shown themselves to be at least consistent in their dumb decisions. To the point now the fact that it wouldn't make any sense is a stronger indicator that it will in fact happen.

[Fox]

@taconaut: Probe increases win percentage, but you do have to have a deck which can translate information into 'this is how I win.' You might use that knowledge to win on the spot (Infect example) or you might win over multiple turns because your decisions are no longer tied to player skill (Delver example). There's also the more complex role of Probe in ANT or alongside delve spells where it's a mix of information and also threshold/mana engine. It can't be in every deck because, without deliberate deck construction, free information can only be responsible for so many wins by itself - at some point a business spell will create more wins in a statistical sample. If a deck's strategy can't use Probe as a force multiplier then there are better cards to use (well....unless Brainstorm is banned for some reason, and then Ponder/Probe is more winning than Ponder/Preordain - this is conjecture, but it's a reasonable hypothesis).

Now Probe doesn't ruin the legacy format because even among the decks that profitably employ it, there are very different strategies (unlike vintage where UWR mentor took over). It's presence in a format doesn't push out differing strategies to an unacceptable degree (this was untrue when UR Cruise Delver was around, also untrue for DTT OmniTell). Probe does not have text that causes everyone else to react or lose (this format warping aspect is most true of the card Counterbalance). Probe lacks any preconditions which promote any but the most narrow interaction - and this is the main problem with Probe, the rules of phyrexian mana.

Probe itself is fine, and everything else about it would be fine if the caster had to provide evidence of Basic [supertype] Island [subtype] on the battlefield before alt-casting for two life. The same can be said of Surgical Extraction, a card that should not castable for two life (after that player has had a main phase in a game of magic) until the player has provided evidence of Basic Swamp on the field.

Now Probe isn't Misstep in terms of 'play it or else,' but the frustration of players with this card is reasonable - for zero risk a Probe player can downplay (as well as their deck is able) any chance for an opponent meaningfully interact....or the game is over because Probe->Sea->Therapy happened before you ever got a turn. This is a mechanics/game theory problem, not a card problem. I don't think the mechanical fix I proposed is too complex; it's literally City's Blessing for a Basic land type (plus a turn zero exception), could even just call it Phyrexia's Blessing or [insert Praetor's name] Blessing.

[jasper]

Seems odd that someone would take issue with dice rolls. Even for the 'ban everything!' crowd, I think this goes too far.http://barkbarkwoofwoof.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Sarcasm-Sign-10-07-15.jpg

the joke





your head

[Hanni]

the joke





your head

Burn.

[taconaut]

@taconaut: Probe increases win percentage, but you do have to have a deck which can translate information into 'this is how I win.'

Are there any competitive decks that do not meet this criteria? Maybe Eldrazi or other stompy decks, but these can't play probe anyway because of chalices? I feel that every DTB requires information to play optimally, which implies this distinction does not exclude any decks, and is therefore not relevant.

You might use that knowledge to win on the spot (Infect example)

ANT or TES might be better examples, but also both run discard, which will also let you see your opponent's hand.

or you might win over multiple turns because your decisions are no longer tied to player skill (Delver example).

Why is player skill wholly predicated on "ability to guess what is in my opponent's hand?"

Other relevant skills in Magic:

- Understanding which of my opponent's cards are relevant to my game plan and theirs
- Understanding combat math and who is in the driver's seat in terms of racing
- Properly matching answers and threats (eg., I could daze this tarmogoyf or push it, but push doesn't answer non-creature cards, but daze loses power as the game goes longer, but I also play lightning bolts and may need reach later, etc etc)
- Deckbuilding skills
- Mulliganing skills
- Fetching the correct colors/managing resources appropriately (eg., can I afford to wasteland, can I afford to be cold to wasteland, which colors do I need to represent to address my opponent's threats and maximize my plays)

I honestly think the notion that Gitaxian Probe turns Magic into a perfunctory exercise devoid of meaningful decisions is just not accurate, and I think a lot of that feeling comes from the types of decks its detractors play.


There's also the more complex role of Probe in ANT or alongside delve spells where it's a mix of information and also threshold/mana engine.

These are the cool, subtle bonuses that make the card interesting.

It can't be in every deck because, without deliberate deck construction, free information can only be responsible for so many wins by itself - at some point a business spell will create more wins in a statistical sample. If a deck's strategy can't use Probe as a force multiplier then there are better cards to use

And this is why it isn't reasonable to ban it.

(well....unless Brainstorm is banned for some reason, and then Ponder/Probe is more winning than Ponder/Preordain - this is conjecture, but it's a reasonable hypothesis).

Unfortunately, we can't know that until and unless Brainstorm is banned. That's a different argument though, so I'll leave it for now.

Now Probe doesn't ruin the legacy format because even among the decks that profitably employ it, there are very different strategies (unlike vintage where UWR mentor took over). It's presence in a format doesn't push out differing strategies to an unacceptable degree (this was untrue when UR Cruise Delver was around, also untrue for DTT OmniTell). Probe does not have text that causes everyone else to react or lose (this format warping aspect is most true of the card Counterbalance).

All of these things are more or less true (I don't think Counterbalance was actually oppressive, though certainly a powerful deck that demanded answers), and I think support my argument that Probe is not bannable.

Probe lacks any preconditions which promote any but the most narrow interaction

I listed a ton of things that interact with it, and moreover, I think interacting with it isn't really all that big a deal. It literally does "Peek."

- and this is the main problem with Probe, the rules of phyrexian mana.

Phyrexian Mana is a reasonable thing to which to object, as are all freebie mechanics.

Probe itself is fine,

Agreed, glad we figured it out :wink::tongue:

and everything else about it would be fine if the caster had to provide evidence of Basic [supertype] Island [subtype] on the battlefield before alt-casting for two life. The same can be said of Surgical Extraction, a card that should not castable for two life (after that player has had a main phase in a game of magic) until the player has provided evidence of Basic Swamp on the field.

I actually find Extraction marginally more objectionable than probe, but still not to a bannable extent. I think applying the requirement to Extraction would make it close to unplayable, because the nice thing about it is that you can stop BR Reanimator (or at least make it harder for them) if you are non-blue. Sometimes they have the chancellor, sure, but every deck in Legacy has nut draws.


Now Probe isn't Misstep in terms of 'play it or else,' but the frustration of players with this card is reasonable - for zero risk a Probe player can downplay (as well as their deck is able) any chance for an opponent meaningfully interact....or the game is over because Probe->Sea->Therapy happened before you ever got a turn.

Still not super different than Thoughtseize, but people don't seem to be buying that, so it's the last time I'll mention it.

This is a mechanics/game theory problem, not a card problem.

I think the game theory does not bear out an argument for banning probe. If we assume Legacy is more or less at equilibrium and Probe is only in the decks where it makes the most sense, as opposed to in all decks, well....there it is.

As for the mechanics, some people might not like the gameplay of it. I think the gameplay of chalice is dumb as hell. Currently, sometimes people are gonna give me the cup, and sometimes people are gonna see what's in your hand. I think both of those are worth it for how good games of Legacy usually are.


I don't think the mechanical fix I proposed is too complex; it's literally City's Blessing for a Basic land type (plus a turn zero exception), could even just call it Phyrexia's Blessing or [insert Praetor's name] Blessing.

I get, and like, the spirit of the rule you're proposing, I just think it's a little clunky, and would only really matter for, what, three cards? I don't think it's worth it, or that those cards are an actual problem.

[maharis]

>fighting attrition battle
>leave opponent with empty board other than lands and 2 blanks in hand
>i have DRS and 4 spirit tokens on board
>opponent topdecks TNN
>opponent topdecks second TNN

Fuck this shit card.